Oral Answers to Questions

CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Academies (Kettering)

Philip Hollobone: What assessment he has made of the effect on educational attainment levels in Kettering at the GCSE stage of the establishment of the two academies there.

Jim Knight: At present there are no academies in Kettering. However, statements of intent have been agreed and my Department is in ongoing discussions with the local authority about the possibility of two schools in Kettering becoming academies. Where academies are established the aim is to achieve educational transformation, significantly improving levels of pupil attainment and benefiting the wider community, including neighbouring schools.

Philip Hollobone: The two hoped-for academies at Ise community college and Montagu school will attract additional investment in local education in Kettering and would be most welcome. What steps are the Government undertaking to monitor individual academies' performance around the country, so as to understand what makes the most successful academies work best and in order to spread best practice to all the others?

Jim Knight: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the possibility of the two academies in his constituency. Indeed, we carefully monitor the work of academies and we are not alone in doing so—the National Audit Office regularly looks at it, as do others such as the Select Committee. In 2007, the NAO concluded that GCSE performance in academies had improved compared with that of predecessor schools and that, taking pupils' personal circumstances and prior attainment into account, academies' GCSE performance is substantially better on average than that of other schools. Comparisons in this area are always welcome.

Peter Bone: Pupils from my constituency have to be bussed to Kettering for their secondary education because under this Government and a Labour county council, John Lea secondary school in my constituency was closed and demolished. Given all the thousands of new homes to be built in my constituency, what plans do the Government have to build a new secondary school there?

Jim Knight: It is a bit like going over old ground, but I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has not raised that matter for a few sessions of oral questions—he has done so several times in the past. As ever, I explain to him that his Tory friends who run Northamptonshire county council are responsible for school organisation, and he needs to take the matter up with them.

Academies (Feeder Schools)

Bob Russell: If he will make it his policy that parents of children at feeder schools and existing secondary schools can vote on whether an academy should be established in their area as part of the decision-making process.

Edward Balls: Proposals to establish academies are subject to non-statutory local consultation, which would normally include all interested parties, including the parents of children at feeder schools and existing secondary schools. When a maintained school is to be closed and replaced with an academy, statutory consultations are required on the proposed closure, which must engage all interested parties. In neither case, however, would there be formal votes or ballots.

Bob Russell: On 1 May in Colchester, the Conservatives lost five seats and control of the borough council. The closure of two secondary schools and the imposition of an academy were major issues. If the Government are listening and they really do want to engage local communities, will the Secretary of State give a pledge that he will honour what happened at the ballot box and save Thomas Lord Audley school at Monkwick and Alderman Blaxill school at Shrub End from closure?

Edward Balls: I understand that there were five Conservative losses on 1 May. I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on their four gains, and note the Labour gain as well.
	I will give no long-term guarantee for those individual schools because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Alderman Blaxill school has not had a good run of results. It is substantially below the target of 30 per cent. GCSEs at grades A to C, including English and maths. During the past three years it has achieved 16 per cent., 14 per cent and 17 per cent. of that target, so we need improvement. Essex county council has explained that its preferred approach is to build on the existing partnership with Stanway school and to pursue a trust. We will support the council in its decision, but only as long as there is genuine improvement in all three schools in the coming year, particularly in Thomas Lord Audley and Alderman Blaxill. We will keep the matter under control, and if those schools do not deliver, we will consider other ways to intervene to ensure that all kids in the hon. Gentleman's area get the improvement in standards that they need.

Rob Marris: Building Schools for the Future money is welcome in Wolverhampton, and there is a proposal to have two academies there. It has been suggested that that money will not be made available in Wolverhampton unless it has those two academies. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that there is no link between the two and that Wolverhampton could have the money without two academies, if it so chose?

Edward Balls: There is no requirement for academies in Wolverhampton as a condition of Building Schools for the Future money—we made that clear to the council and local Members of Parliament. There will be academies in Wolverhampton because the council is proposing them. It sees from results throughout the country that academies are a powerful way to raise standards, especially in areas that have had lower standards and where there is a need for new investment. We support academies in Wolverhampton but we will not impose them on Wolverhampton. The local council is proposing them and we will back its plans.

Nick Gibb: The Secretary of State will recall Tony Blair's vision for the academies programme. He said:
	"Our aim is the creation of a system of independent non-fee paying state schools."
	We were told that academies were to be freed from the national curriculum and independent of local authority control, but since the Secretary of State took office he has required all new academies to follow the national curriculum and now a third of new academies have local authorities as their sponsor. Why have the Government abandoned those freedoms? Is it not the case that, as last week's legislative programme makes clear, the Government have run out of ideas on school reform, have no clear sense of direction and, as the chief inspector of schools said today, school standards have "stalled"?

Edward Balls: The hon. Gentleman's facts are incorrect. I have not imposed the national curriculum on academies. New academies will teach the national curriculum in maths, English, science and IT, but retain the wider flexibilities to innovate and tackle lower performing pupils' needs.
	When I became Secretary of State, all new academies proceeded with local authorities' agreement and I have not changed that. The only change that I have made is to accelerate the number of academies to bring universities, further education colleges and wider sponsors into the academies movement by abolishing the £2 million entry fee. We are using academies as an important way to drive up standards and meet the national challenge of getting all schools above the 30 per cent. target. The Government are using academies effectively to drive up standards, but the Conservative party has a black hole in its plans, which it cannot explain, when it comes to academies.

Children's Centres

Anne Snelgrove: What progress has been made towards meeting the target of establishing 3,500 children's centres by 2010.

Beverley Hughes: There are currently 2,907 designated Sure Start children's centres offering services to more than 2 million children aged under five and their families. We met our manifesto commitment for 2,500 centres by March this year and we are on track to meet our target of 3,500 centres by 2010—one for every community.

Anne Snelgrove: That is indeed good news. I am delighted that there are five Sure Start centres in my constituency. On average, 800 children use them each year, and I am committed to the Sure Start programme. What does my right hon. Friend believe the effect would be on those 4,000 children in South Swindon should the Sure Start programme be closed or not go ahead?

Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend takes a great interest in the matter and she knows that we are progressively building a new universal service for the youngest children and their families, bringing together health, early years, parent support and employment services, to name but a few. The independent academic evaluation has shown that that is already having a positive impact on children's development and parents. If anything jeopardised the programme, I am sure that parents, professionals and any sensible person would greet that with dismay.

Annette Brooke: We welcome the progress on the number of children's centres, but does the Minister share my concern about the continuous fall in the number of registered child minders, according to Ofsted, in the past year? Has she specifically examined the possible impact of the introduction of the early years foundation stage on the number of people who are willing to undertake that important function?

Beverley Hughes: The number of places for children in early years provision continues to grow. However, we will clearly watch carefully and talk to child minders about any further decrease in their numbers. Having spoken to many child minders, I am convinced that the decline has nothing to do the EYFS, which is simply what good child minders are already familiar doing: having a flexible, play-based approach to children's development while they are in their care. The early years foundation stage does nothing more than that.

Jeff Ennis: Children's centres make a big difference in constituencies such as mine. However, a minor problem is that, when they are attached to existing primary schools, with nursery provision extending from nought to five, they can become over-subscribed, as has happened in Milefield school in Grimethorpe in my constituency. Neighbouring Ladywood primary school, on whose governing board I serve, has only three pupils in the nursery unit next year. What more can we do as a Government to try to correct the imbalance that is currently being created in some locations?

Beverley Hughes: I know that my hon. Friend has written to me about the situation in his local area. As I explained to him, the situation is not one that we in central Government can micro-manage. We have laid a duty on every local authority to assess the need in its area, look into the supply and ensure a good match, in order to give parents the most flexibility in affordable child care suited to the needs of the area. However, I would be happy to talk to my hon. Friend further about his local situation if that would help.

John Bercow: Given that the early years foundation stage curriculum becomes mandatory in September and that, as the right hon. Lady knows, communication, language and literacy are an important strand of provision for children from birth to the age of five, can the Minister advise the House what progress has been made in clarifying the guidance to be issued to the Department of Health on the provision of speech and language therapy in those children's centres and on the financing for it? Further to what has just been asked, will she also do something to try to ensure that the excellent children's centres are extended to the hardest to reach children in some of the poorest parts of the country?

Beverley Hughes: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's question. I know the premium that he places on communication and language skills, as do I. I will investigate the question that he raises about guidance for the Department of Health and write to him. I can tell him, however, that speech and language therapists are increasingly working in and through children's centres, which I am very pleased about. We will also develop a programme, which I think we will call Let's Talk to help people to develop children's vocabulary, because we know that that makes a big difference to a child's ability to communicate.
	On outreach, we have also funded two additional workers in every children's centre, to ensure that we reach those families who would perhaps not necessarily find it that easy to come of their own volition. Going out to those families can encourage them to come into the children's centres.

Maria Miller: The director of the national evaluation of Sure Start has told the Select Committee on Health that an integrated and expanded role for health visitors would make Sure Start significantly more effective. We agree. That is why our policies involve health visitors delivering Sure Start's vital outreach service. I know that the Minister shares our view that outreach support to the most disadvantaged groups is a critical role for Sure Start, so can she explain to the House why the Government's plans and budget for extending the service, which were set out in great detail last November in this document—"Sure Start Children's Centres: Phase 3 Planning and Delivery"—have now been slashed, with outreach in the most disadvantaged areas cut by one third? Outreach is a vital part of Sure Start. Why is it being cut and where has the money gone?

Beverley Hughes: Those on the Opposition Front Bench seem a bit weak on correct information today. The hon. Lady is quite incorrect: the Government are investing a total of £4 billion in supporting services through, and developing further, children's centres over the next three years, which includes an additional £79 million specifically for outreach work. What we are not doing is having a £200 million cut, which is what the Opposition would propose, and neither are we saying that it is either health visitors—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call David Taylor.

Pupil Transport

David Taylor: What recent assessment he has made of the charging policies of local authorities for pupil transport to and from voluntary-aided schools; and if he will make a statement.

Jim Knight: The Department is committed to enabling parents to exercise choice and access the range of schools, including the excellent education offered by many faith-based schools. The Department does not routinely conduct assessments of charging policies for transport to voluntary-aided schools. Local authorities are required to publish their policies on free and assisted home-to-school transport annually and to defend those policies locally.

David Taylor: Many North-West Leicestershire children in faith primary schools have a faith secondary school at such a distance that pupil transport is needed, but Conservative-led Leicestershire county council is introducing an annual £240 transport charge per child in the autumn, which will impose a serious burden on many homes. Does the Minister agree that if there is no consistency of policy across local authorities, we will have in effect a discriminatory, excessive, unacceptable and scandalous Catholic tax on families who ought to have continued free transport, at least until year 11, which is what is available to parents of other faiths and no faith? That will damage access and choice, will it not?

Jim Knight: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that local authorities should continue to think it right not to disturb well-established arrangements, including free faith-based transport. My authority, in Dorset, appears to be proceeding, without any consultation, with charging for it. We would not advocate that in our guidance. In the Education and Inspections Act 2006, we changed the law to make faith-based transport available, up to 15 miles, to those on low incomes, but local authorities are still locally accountable for decisions beyond that.

Children's Centres (Ipswich)

Chris Mole: How many children's centres there are in Ipswich.

Beverley Hughes: There are 11 designated children's centres in Ipswich, offering services to approximately 8,000 children aged under 5 and their families. In the next three years, Suffolk will have a further £28.7 million to develop an additional 13 centres, including in Ipswich, to provide all families with those services by 2010.

Chris Mole: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. We are about to start celebrating the success of children's centres in Ipswich and in the wider county. Staff working in the Wellington centre, in Ipswich, have told me how much they value working in a multi-agency way, because it helps them to address the often complex needs of some of those families with young children. Will she continue to resist proposals to cut £200 million from the Sure Start programme, as that would undermine the high-quality early learning and health interventions and the employment outreach work that are so vital to some of those families?

Beverley Hughes: Yes, the proposals to which my hon. Friend refers would leave a black hole of £120 million and would involve a £200 million cut in the programme. More than that, they are wrong-headed, because this is not about having either health visitors or outreach workers; we need multi-agency teams that include both, as with the excellent co-located services in Ipswich, where health visitors hold clinics and carry out home visits with family support outreach workers. That system is about working together.

Short Breaks (Disabled Children)

Mark Harper: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on the provision of short breaks for disabled children.

Edward Balls: I meet regularly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to develop the Government's programme for improving child health and well-being, which includes a transformation in the provision of short breaks for families with disabled children.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. I am pleased with what his Department has done on this issue and with the money that it has given to local authorities. My county, Gloucestershire, is one of the pathfinders. One of my reasons for asking him to talk to the Department of Health is that the Government committed, in the comprehensive spending review, to the NHS matching the funding that his Department makes available. On investigation, I have found that that just is not the case. In Gloucestershire, the primary care trust got exactly the same rise as every other PCT. Gloucestershire is a pathfinder, but has no extra money to provide the necessary services. Will the Secretary of State talk to his colleague the Health Secretary about putting that right?

Edward Balls: As the hon. Gentleman has said, we are seeing a transformation. There will be a £280 million increase in spending on short breaks in the next three years from my Department, and a further £90 million in capital spending. Local authority by local authority, that will lead to a doubling, on average, of spending on short breaks, and a fivefold increase in some cases. That will be greatly welcomed by families with disabled children for whom short breaks are often a lifeline in the difficult job that they do.
	I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of money being matched through PCTs and the health service, and I have talked to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), and the Health Secretary about that in detail. The Health Department rightly takes the view that PCTs have a responsibility, area by area, to find money from their overall budgets to match our spending. Such decisions should be for PCTs, but we are clear, nationally, in our Department and in the Health Department, that PCTs must find the money to fund short breaks. They will be held to account by parents, families and, I hope, by hon. Members on both sides of the House if they do not find the money to do that. Our joint health strategy will ensure that that happens.

Joan Humble: At a recent conference in Blackpool, I spoke to parents whose children suffer from various forms of cancer. Children who are disabled because of a life-limiting illness often need respite care—sometimes from health services and sometimes from properly trained social care workers provided by local authorities. Will the Secretary of State ensure, in his discussions with his colleagues in the Health Department, that those families have appropriate, integrated packages to support them through what are often difficult times?

Edward Balls: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on preparing the way for the Aimhigher plan for disabled children, which we are now implementing. One of the key aspects of the report on this matter was the importance of ensuring that we provide guidance and support for parents so that they can navigate what is often, for them, a complex system, in order to deal with their child's multiple and complex needs. It is important that we do that for all aspects of a child's care, including short breaks. In the past, respite breaks have often been seen as providing respite for the parents and siblings. In the transformation of short breaks that we are pursuing, we are also trying to achieve a transformation in the experience for the children themselves, and to make the short breaks genuinely fun and enjoyable. For that to happen, the children must get the care that they need, including the health care. That is why my hon. Friend's point is so valid. I shall be discussing this matter with the Health Secretary as we take forward our joint child health strategy this summer.

Angela Watkinson: Does the Secretary of State recognise the very special needs of families with children with an autistic spectrum disorder, who are desperately in need of the occasional break? The environment for those children is very specific and must be appropriate to their needs. They thrive on familiarity and often do not respond well to change or to different circumstances, but those breaks are essential, as the Secretary of State has acknowledged, for the parents and siblings as well.

Edward Balls: The hon. Lady is quite right. For all children with a learning disability or a physical disability, a short break can work and be trusted by the parents only if they can be confident that it will provide the care and support that that individual child needs, and that the child will be secure. That is true for children with physical disabilities, but it is also true for children with a learning difficulty such as autism. I have visited the TreeHouse school in north London and seen the intense way in which professionals provide care throughout the day. I have also seen how the parents provide that care all on their own in the mornings and evenings, and during the school holidays. For those parents, a short break is vital, but it must be tailored to the needs of the child.

Youth Facilities (Warrington)

Helen Jones: What steps he is taking to improve youth facilities in Warrington.

Kevin Brennan: Young people, their families and communities in Warrington and elsewhere are united in calling for attractive and safe youth facilities where young people can meet their friends, take part in positive activities and access support services. We are committed to meeting that demand. That is why, last month, we launched myplace, a new national programme of capital investment which will make available £190 million over the next three years to provide new or improved youth facilities.

Helen Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, but what can he do to ensure that Lib-Dem and Tory-controlled councils take advantage of the money that is being provided by the Government, so that areas in my constituency, such as Burtonwood—which get a youth bus only twice a week and have little access to the town in the evening by public transport—actually get the youth facilities that residents are asking for in every survey carried out, but which are constantly being delayed?

Kevin Brennan: All that we can do is to encourage the local authorities concerned, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be doing everything in her power—including asking this question today—to encourage her local authority to apply for the funding. It is extremely important that when these facilities are put in place the young people themselves are consulted, along with the local community. May I add that the local Member of Parliament should be consulted as well?

Helen Southworth: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the friends of Westy park, who are involving local young people in a major project to draw up plans for play, sports and leisure facilities in one of the most disadvantaged wards in Cheshire? Those facilities are urgently needed.

Kevin Brennan: I am happy to do so. It is clear from the research that has been undertaken that, where young people are involved—whether in the design or in the management and running of a facility—the projects are much more successful. That is why young people are an integral part of the myplace initiative.

Tim Loughton: Notwithstanding the admirable efforts by the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) to improve the lot of young people in her constituency, why did the figures released last week by the Youth Justice Board show a 45 per cent. increase in youth crime in the Warrington area, with crime by girls up by 60 per cent., and a 27 per cent. rise in hospital admissions in Warrington for alcohol problems involving children in the past three years? Chlamydia rates have risen by 50 per cent. in the north-west over the past five years. Those figures are, sadly, replicated across the rest of the country. Are not the Government failing our young people in that, rather than promoting youth facilities with urgent education programmes to encourage responsible attitudes to sex, drinking and youth crime, they seem more intent on demonising young people yet again by staging desperate stunts with fake hoodies in Crewe?

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman is wandering rather off piste. Nevertheless, let me deal with the issue of Warrington. I think that the whole House would want to join me in expressing sympathy to the Newlove family in respect of what we all recognise as an appalling case that took place there recently. The key is to work in partnership, nationally and locally, to try to solve these problems. That means that there are local responsibilities as well. We are playing our part nationally with record investment in youth facilities and we will soon publish our new youth alcohol action plan. The Government are doing their bit; it is also necessary for it to happen locally.

The Challenge Programme

Adrian Bailey: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the London, Manchester and Black Country Challenges; and if he will make a statement.

Edward Balls: Since 2003, our London Challenge programme has brought wholesale improvements in secondary schools, with results rising faster than nationally. Those successes will now be extended locally and across the country. The programme has already been introduced in Greater Manchester and the black country and our proposed new legislation will ensure that every school is a good school, with local authorities using their powers—and Challenge using its powers—to intervene when necessary.

Adrian Bailey: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Sandwell schools in the black country have improved their educational performance significantly since 1997, but it is recognised that there is still further to go to meet the skills demands of local employers. Will my right hon. Friend tell me how much money will be targeted on schools in the black country and in what specific ways work will be done with the schools to raise the skills levels?

Edward Balls: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in praising Sandwell council, which last year had the seventh biggest improvement in school results in the whole country, and the 20th biggest increase over the past 10 years. I am happy to praise local authorities—Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat—that make progress on standards. I refuse to run down the contribution of local authorities in the way that Conservative Members do at every opportunity. It is quite right, however, to continue to work with Sandwell so that results continue to improve in the future. I also support the council in its work in opening academies. We are allocating £23 million to the Black Country Challenge over the next three years, but the money will be well spent only if it is spent in partnership with local authorities rather than in opposition and conflict.

Children's Centres (Crawley)

Laura Moffatt: When he expects further children's centres to be established in Crawley.

Beverley Hughes: There are five designated children's centres in Crawley, reaching 4,500 children. Over the next three years, there will be a further £28.8 million for what we expect to be a further 17 centres in West Sussex, including in Crawley.

Laura Moffatt: I am deeply grateful for that response. Anyone who has stayed close to Sure Start centres will know about the fantastic work that has gone on in them. It was right to concentrate on the most needy children first. Now that the service is going to be universal, what steps can my right hon. Friend take to ensure that county councils do not plead poverty in the future and then fail to use that money for those children that desperately need it?

Beverley Hughes: Of course we have enshrined in legislation the requirement that local authorities, along with other key partners like primary care trusts and Jobcentre Plus, provide integrated services on this model for children under five and their parents. I expect local authorities to abide by that legislation, but I also hope that they will do so enthusiastically, as there is no doubt from the feedback from those working in children's centres and from the growing and measurable positive impacts on children and parents alike that this service was much needed. It is going to grow and I hope that it will have a positive benefit for every child in the country by 2010.

Patrick Cormack: Does the Minister accept that in Crawley, in Staffordshire and everywhere else the best possible centre is the family? What is she doing as a Minister in a Department that carries that word in its title, to encourage families and not to institutionalise children, irrespective of their backgrounds?

Beverley Hughes: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, although—the Conservative party has recently recognised this, rather belatedly—some families want some support in bringing up their children. That is part of the services that children's centres are providing. In particular, those in Crawley have developed an important standard of excellence in the services that they are developing for parents, including services for fathers, grandfathers and male carers, and talking toddlers groups—all those things that are helping parents with what in today's society is perhaps the increasingly difficult job of bringing their children up well.

School Standards

Jim Cunningham: What recent steps the Government have taken to raise standards in schools.

Jim Knight: Since 1997, we have doubled funding per pupil and put more than 200,000 more adults in classrooms. Our children's plan sets out how we will deliver a world-class education system: personalised learning, progression, Every Child a Reader, Every Child a Writer, Every Child Counts, tutors, curriculum changes, academies, new 14 to 19 diplomas, raising the participation age, work-force reforms and continued investment will continue to transform standards. And we have recently announced £200 million to achieve our ambition to have no secondary school below the 30 per cent. floor target by 2011. And on capital, we are spending £45 billion on the Building Schools for the Future programme to rebuild or refurbish every single secondary school in England.

Jim Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but will he now answer my question about whether he has any further plans to raise standards in schools?

Jim Knight: Well, in among that long list of things that we are doing, my hon. Friend should pick out Every Child a Reader, Every Child a Writer and Every Child Counts, which aim to ensure that every child leaves primary school with the required standard. We have 100,000 more than in 1997 achieving the required standard in English and maths, but we need to go further. The effect of a positive environment is not to be underestimated, and the Building Schools for the Future programme will proceed without the £5.2 billion black hole in its finances that the Conservative party has in its BSF programme.

Graham Stuart: Last week, the chief inspector of schools, Christine Gilbert, told the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families that standards had stalled. She also said that 20 per cent. of children leaving primary school—one in five—did not have the literacy and numeracy skills to prosper at secondary school. It is hard to square the words of the chief inspector of schools with what the Minister has just told us. Will he tell the House from what date he thinks improvements stalled under this Government?

Jim Knight: We always say that we need to do better, but I do not agree that progress has stalled. Key stage 2 results are up 17 percentage points from 63 to 80 per cent. in English since 1997, and up 15 percentage points in maths at that stage. At key stage 3, there are similar improvements. We see that across the board. Indeed, reading is a subject that the Conservative party rightly talks about a great deal, and the hon. Gentleman will have seen the excellent results of the reading recovery programme, which were publicised last week. They show that we are making really good progress in dealing with the most difficult literacy problems in our primary schools.

Kelvin Hopkins: In that long list of excellent Government initiatives, I do not think that I heard my hon. Friend mention teaching methods and classroom arrangements. Over a couple of generations, misguided teaching methods were damaging to our children's education success, but there are now demonstrably good methods that are much more successful. Will he use his good offices to ensure that those poor methods are finally eliminated and that the best methods are adopted?

Jim Knight: Of course, there was not enough time to list all the many things that we are doing to raise standards in schools. Improving teaching is certainly one of them. Ofsted, which the Conservative party is keen to quote, tells us that we have the best generation of young teachers that we have ever had in our schools. One thing that we are doing further to develop the early years of teaching is developing a masters qualification in teaching and learning, so that teaching can become a masters-level profession. Part of that will involve ensuring that we have proper rigour.
	Recently, I was at a school in Calderdale, seeing the progression pilots. I saw real rigour in key stage 3 English and maths teaching; teachers using progression pilot techniques such as the APP—assessing pupil progress—method were able properly to identify the level that each child was at in their class and help them to progress to the next one.

Patrick McLoughlin: How many children in English primary schools does the Minister think is failing?

Hon. Members: Are failing.

Jim Knight: Clearly we could have a long sedentary exchange about the right hon. Gentleman's grammar, but I can tell him that 80 per cent. of pupils are currently leaving primary school having met the national standard in English, while 77 per cent. are leaving having met it in maths. Obviously we want 100 per cent. to achieve the national standard, and although we are moving in the right direction, we still have some way to go.

Mental Health Services

Kerry McCarthy: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on the review of child and adolescent mental health services; and if he will make a statement.

Kevin Brennan: The two Secretaries of State have had discussions about the CAMHS review prior to its announcement in the children's plan, and subsequently during their regular meetings to discuss a range of issues. Both Secretaries of State are closely involved in the progress of the review. Meetings have been held, and further meetings are planned, between the review's chairmen and the Secretaries of State. They will also jointly attend a forthcoming meeting of the review's expert group.

Kerry McCarthy: I hope that the Minister is aware of the latest report from the Children's Society in connection with its Good Childhood inquiry, which raises concerns about the rising mental health problems among children and young people. As part of the review, will the Secretaries of State consider the roles that schools and education welfare people can play in helping to identify children who are at risk of developing such problems, and perhaps in helping to prevent the problems from developing?

Kevin Brennan: I can confirm that. I can also confirm that, in addition to the meetings that I mentioned in my answer, at the Department of Health later this afternoon I shall meet the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), along with front-line practitioners and members of the expert group, to discuss the review even further.
	As my hon. Friend says, schools have a vital role to play. Only last week I visited St Matthew's school, Westminster, and in previous weeks I visited Mowlem primary school in Tower Hamlets, where we looked at the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning programme. I hope that Conservative Front Benchers have changed their minds about that programme, because it is having a real effect in transforming some of those problems in our schools.

Hilary Armstrong: Does my hon. Friend recognise that in our increasingly complex world, it is very important—probably much more important than in the past—to build up children's resilience, so that as they grow up they are better able to handle the many things that come into their lives? One of the best ways of building resilience is through the early intervention programmes that the Government have set in train. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the Secretary of State will continue to discuss those programmes, which we know work and have significant effects as children grow older, with the Secretary of State for Health? I believe that that will have a real effect.

Kevin Brennan: Yes. I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend, who was an early innovator of those initiatives, and piloted and introduced many of them to Government. Early intervention and building the resilience of children and young people are vital in today's complicated world, and I assure her they are at the heart of the children's plan and the Department's mission.

Children's Centres (Milton Keynes)

Phyllis Starkey: How many children's centres there are in Milton Keynes.

Beverley Hughes: There are 13 designated Sure Start children's centres in Milton Keynes offering services to approximately 9,000 young children and their families in the area.

Phyllis Starkey: I assure the Minister that the centres that have already been built are doing an excellent job for my constituents, but as she knows, Milton Keynes is an area of housing growth. The council has asked me to ask the Minister whether there will be funding for children's centres for our growing population after 2010-11. Can she give me an answer?

Beverley Hughes: Obviously I can only speak for this Government—who I am sure will still be the Government after 2010. We are committed to continuing to support Sure Start children's centres, and that will be reflected in the revenue support grant that we give local authorities from that point onwards.

Admissions Policies (Northamptonshire)

Brian Binley: What discussions he has had with schools in Northamptonshire on their admission policies following the Government's recent analysis of three local education authorities.

Jim Knight: My officials wrote to the admission authorities of 51 schools in Northamptonshire on 11 March, asking them to verify whether the admission arrangements being reviewed were in fact the correct admission arrangements adopted by their school for 2008-09. Since then, my officials have had discussions and been corresponding with a number of schools involved in the exercise to ensure compliance with the admissions code.

Brian Binley: As a result of that analysis the Department issued a badly drafted press release that implied that schools in Northamptonshire were, among other things, taking money for offering places. It later transpired that not one school in Northamptonshire acted in such a way. Will the Minister now apologise to my constituents, and to the wider Northamptonshire public, for that truly disturbing press release?

Jim Knight: The press release that we issued did not specify authorities individually in terms of the areas of non-compliance; we were very careful about that. We wanted to make sure that we had gone through the verification process. However, in order to inform the consultation on the admission arrangements for next year, it was important to publicise the levels of non-compliance that our internal exercise had found, including non-compliance in Northamptonshire in a range of other areas that were depriving some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents of fair admissions to schools. We therefore have nothing to apologise about.

Topical Questions

Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Edward Balls: I have today placed in the Library a letter I have written today to our social partners asking them to consider what more we can do to improve the early years of teachers' careers, and I have also laid a written statement confirming that I have accepted in full the recommendations that the independent School Teachers Review Body makes in its 17th report, including those on the modernisation of teachers' responsibilities, enhanced leadership and the conditions of teachers who are not attached to specific schools, such as those in pupil referral units. Tomorrow I will publish a White Paper on how we will deliver improvements in education for excluded pupils. My statement also confirms my full acceptance of the recommended 2.45 per cent. pay rise for teachers from September this year and 2 per cent. per year from 2009 and 2010. I believe that this three-year award will enable teachers and schools to plan ahead, is fair and affordable, and delivers the public sector pay discipline that our economy needs at this crucial time.

Desmond Swayne: My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) reported the chief inspector's finding that standards have stalled. Whom does the Secretary of State blame for that? Is it the pupils or teachers? Is it himself? Or could it be his favourite scapegoat at the moment for everything that has gone wrong—the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)?

Edward Balls: I think that that was a non-sequitur, so we shall move on. The fact is that there has been a substantial rise in school standards over the last 10 years, but as I have said in the House before, the rate of increase has slowed in recent years and we must redouble our efforts. One reason why there has been a slow-down is that we are now reaching the point where it is often children with particular learning disabilities who need extra help in order to increase their learning opportunities and reach key stage 4 at age 11. That is why we are taking forward early intervention with Every Child a Reader and Every Child Counts, to give extra, special one-to-one help to those children so that they can get the support they need so that every child can excel in school, which is our ambition.

Ben Chapman: It is foster care fortnight. These selfless people play a crucial role in our society, but I am told that 40 per cent. of them are unpaid and 75 per cent. earn less than the minimum wage. What does the Minister propose to do to address this issue, so that we can begin to tackle the shortage in Wirral and elsewhere?

Kevin Brennan: In our Care Matters implementation plan and in the forthcoming Children and Young Persons Bill we set out a number of measures that we are taking to try to improve matters for foster carers. My hon. Friend is right to say that they play a vital role in the care system. Not all foster care is regarded as a profession or a job in the same way as in other areas, so although we have a national series of allowances, there is no national fee structure in relation to foster carers. Foster care fortnight is an excellent opportunity to raise awareness of the need for more foster carers and of the wonderful, rewarding work that they do.

Tom Brake: The Minister will be aware of new plans for parent-driven school inspections. Can he confirm how many parents will be needed to trigger an inspection, in what circumstances they will be able to do so and what he will do to stop vexatious repeat requests from parents?

Edward Balls: The chief inspector of schools has made a statement today, and I fully support it. It is right that the views of parents are fully incorporated into the inspections regime. Our national challenge programme to improve every school will require local authorities to take into account the views of local parents and to consult them actively. The details of how the inspection regime will work is a matter for Ofsted, not for me. I am sure that the chief inspector will want to ensure that we avoid vexatious views and the putting up of obstacles. I think it is right that we make it easier for parents to have a view and to, if not trigger, at least raise the potential for an early inspection of a particular school. I fully support what the chief inspector is doing to enhance parent power in our country.

Anne Snelgrove: The excellent reading recovery scheme at Oaktree primary school in Swindon is achieving remarkable results with young people, particularly Kerry, Charlene and Dylan, whom I heard read the other day; they were excellent readers. Would my right hon. Friend congratulate Celia Messenger, the tutor in charge of reading recovery and consider visiting the scheme? Is the success of Swindon's scheme replicated throughout the country?

Beverley Hughes: I certainly welcome the opportunity to congratulate Celia Messenger and her colleagues. I can also categorically say to my hon. Friend that the success in Swindon has been matched nationally by an exceptional programme that has an improvement rate of 80 per cent. over 21 months, which is four times the normal age rate. That is why we are moving from pilots to a national programme with an investment of £144 million. I am sure that one of the team will be happy to visit Swindon as soon as we can.

David Laws: The Secretary of State will know of the shambles that we have seen over the past couple of weeks in the marking of 1.2 million key stage 2 and key stage 3 test papers. What action is he taking over this issue? Will he consider withholding some of the £153 million due to be paid to ETS, which is administering this contract, over the next five years?

Edward Balls: This is something that we have taken very seriously, and the Minister for Schools and Learners has himself been in consultation with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which has responsibility for delivering the tests. It informs us that the actions that have been taken are sufficient to get things back on track, but clearly we will keep the matter closely under review, and he will take an active watching brief on the issue.

Michael Gove: Further to the answer that the Secretary of State has just given, he must know that ETS has a history of failure abroad. In 2004, in America, it gave 4,000 graduate teachers the wrong marks for their teaching exams and had to pay millions of dollars in compensation. Can the Secretary of State tell us what information he had about the company's failure in America before it was granted this contract? What steps did he take to avert further problems in this country?

Edward Balls: The decision to grant the contract was taken by the National Assessment Agency, which reports to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. It made the decision, not me. It is not for me to make individual contractual decisions in these cases, but clearly I am taking the matter very seriously. As I just said, we will keep it closely under review, and I shall talk to the QCA. The most important thing, from my point of view, is to ensure that our standard assessment tests marking goes smoothly for pupils, teachers and parents, and for the markers themselves. We have been assured that things are on track, but we will keep the matter closely under review.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his reply, but is he really telling us that a contract was established with this company to monitor all key stage 2 and key stage 3 tests and Ministers did not know that it had been responsible for failing teachers wrongly in America and for paying out millions of dollars in compensation, and that it had been found wanting in graduate examinations across the United States? How was the company allowed to grant this contract without Ministers having oversight? Who will now apologise to the teachers and markers who are in the eye of the storm?

Edward Balls: As I said, this is a matter that the NAA takes forward as part of the QCA. It is something that we are monitoring closely, but the decisions are not made by me. I have no knowledge of the facts that the hon. Gentleman raises. If he had raised them at an earlier stage, I might have looked at them, but he has never done so before. The matter is something that we are happy to keep an eye on, but it is not a matter for me to award these contracts—it is a matter for the QCA.

Helen Southworth: What progress has been made towards developing an action plan to safeguard runaway and missing children?

Kevin Brennan: The Government are committed to driving up improvements for young runaways, as we set out in the children's plan. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that she and her cross-party group have done in that area. We have established a cross-departmental working group, and the action plan on which it is working will be launched in June. In addition, we will develop a new indicator on young people who run away, as part of the national indicator set to be measured from 2009.

Mark Pritchard: Newport high school in my constituency is one of the top schools in the west midlands and indeed in the country, so much so that next year many of the pupils will bypass GCSE maths and go on to AS-level maths examinations. However, as a result of that success, it will be penalised in the school performance tables. Why is the Minister prepared to see high-achieving schools such as Newport high school penalised for their success?

Jim Knight: I am happy to have a look at the individual case, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to come and talk to me, that is fine and I shall have a look at it. Clearly, we want to motivate as many people as possible to achieve high standards in maths. If they want to go on to do AS-level maths, that is a good thing. I am happy to talk to him about how we could reflect that in the tables, but I need to understand whether the pupils have already taken GCSE maths as a stepping stone to the AS-levels, in which case the issue would be straightforward.

Linda Riordan: The Minister's decision last autumn to order a review of city academies was most welcome. Could he now tell us when that review will be published? If the findings conclude that such schools do not benefit our poorest communities, can he confirm that the academies programme will be scrapped and successful comprehensive schools, such as he visited in Calder Valley last week, will be encouraged?

Jim Knight: I certainly had a very encouraging visit to Todmorden high in Calder Valley last week, and I was hoping to be able to nip over to Halifax to my hon. Friend's constituency, but unfortunately I was pulled off in another direction. As I said earlier, the academies programme is being consistently reviewed by all manner of people. Everyone who reviews it concludes that academies are doing a really good job, and I look forward to an academy replacing the Ridings school in her constituency and turning around performance that has been below the standard required for some time.

Dawn Butler: Oakington Manor is one of my schools of excellence in Brent and it embraces many Government initiatives such as the Kickz programme and extended schools. Its head teacher, Sylvia Libson, says that children should have a safe place to go and structured activities to do. What are the Government doing to expand the Bill on unclaimed assets and the recommendations in it?

Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend is right, and that is why we have put great stress on young people having much more access to structured activities with good adults than they have in the past. The Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill is going through the House now, as she knows, and one of the priorities, when the assets come on stream, will be the provision of such activities and places for young people. However, we are not waiting for that, and she will have heard my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary's reference to the myplace initiative, to which we have given £190 million to start the process before the assets come on stream.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Secretary of State—himself no mean cricketer—aware that tomorrow is national schools cricket day? He recently claimed that 90 per cent. of all state schools were offering cricket, which sounds an excellent figure. But is he also aware that the Cricket Foundation, the Government's designated organisation for delivering grass-roots cricket, discovered in a survey that only 10 per cent. of children actually play cricket in state schools? Are those figures correct? If they are, what will he do to try to get more young children on to the pitch?

Edward Balls: The hon. Gentleman is well known for his cricketing skills and interest, and for his work on the all-party group. It was a matter of pleasure for me to see him bowled out in the first over of our game last year, even though those from my side of the House went on to suffer defeat. According to my information, nine out of 10 schools do offer cricket to their pupils, and more than half of all schools have strong links with cricket clubs. We support enthusiastically the work of the Chance to Shine initiative and the national cricket day tomorrow, and I am happy to meet him to discuss the matter further. For the benefit of Members on both sides of the House, the current score is that New Zealand are 187 for four.

Celia Barlow: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Hangleton Park children's centre, which opens on Thursday—the latest of 14 across my city of Brighton and Hove? I have had the joy of visiting the openings of Clarendon Road, Cornerstones, West Hove school, Mile Oak and South Portslade children's centres. Does she agree that those centres not only provide a wonderful start in life for babies and toddlers, but are a cohesive force in the community, making adults realise the importance of parenthood?

Beverley Hughes: I am pleased that my hon. Friend will have another children's centre to visit in her constituency. As she rightly says, children's centres have always had two equally important priorities, because we can achieve the best possible development of young children only if we support parents too. That twofold approach is the right one.

Point of Order

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask your advice about the High Court's determination on Friday that Members' private home addresses should be published under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 when requests are made. As I have tried to indicate previously in the House, I believe that such a policy would be extremely dangerous in the present security environment, and my belief is shared by Members from all parties in the House. Until now, as the matter has been sub judice, we have understandably been prevented from discussing it in the House. We have not been able to discuss it in the press, because the press is in the driving seat of applications for addresses to be disclosed. What can we do properly to air publicly, in the Chamber or outside, our justified concerns about the security implications of this foolish decision?

Mr. Speaker: That was not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the question of sub judice has now been lifted. Therefore, he or any other hon. Member can now table parliamentary questions or raise the matter in the usual way, perhaps through a debate. I thank him.

Orders of the Day

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill  [Lords]
	 — 
	[1st Allotted Day]

(Clauses Nos. 4, 11, 14 and 23, Schedule No. 2 and any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners)
	 Considered in Committee.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst  in the Chair]

Clause 4
	 — 
	Prohibitions in connection with genetic material not of human origin

Edward Leigh: I beg to move amendment No. 1, page 4, leave out line 5.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 2, page 4, line 6, leave out from 'authorise' to end of line 12 and insert—
	'(a) the mixing of human gametes with animal gametes,
	(b) the bringing about of the creation of a human admixed embryo, or
	(c) the keeping or using of a human admixed embryo.'.
	No. 42, line 13, leave out subsection (4).
	Government amendment No. 33.
	No. 10, line 14, at end insert—
	'(4A) A licence cannot authorise the creation of an embryo using—
	(a) human gametes and animal gametes, or
	(b) one human pronucleus and one animal pronucleus.'.
	No. 11, line 22, leave out paragraph (b).
	No. 44, page 4, leave out lines 25 to 27.
	Government amendments Nos. 34 and 35.
	No. 3, in schedule 2, page 54, line 31, at end insert—
	'(ca) omit paragraph (f)'.
	Government amendment No. 36.
	No. 43, page 58, line 2, at end insert—
	'(4A) A licence for research cannot authorise the creation of an embryo by the introduction of a sequence of nuclear or mitochondrial DNA from any species into one or more cells of the embryo or into gametes used to create that embryo.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 37 to 39.

Edward Leigh: Mr. Deputy Leader, amendment No. 1—

The Chairman: Order. I had not meant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but "Deputy Leader" is a new term.

Edward Leigh: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall start again.
	Amendment No. 1 addresses probably the most radical proposal in the Bill, which is to create part-animal, part-human embryos. The main contention of the amendment's supporters is that that is ethically wrong and almost certainly medically useless—or, if it is not useless, that there is no evidence as yet to substantiate it.
	It is said by those who resist the amendment that we can rely on regulation, but we do not believe that regulation is enough. We believe that the move is a step too far and should therefore be banned. Indeed, the Government support the contention that some things are so ethically dangerous that they should be banned. For instance, the Bill will not allow the use of embryos for sex selection or to allow deaf people to have deaf children. Occasionally, the House makes a firm decision that something is ethically wrong. The House long ago decided, for example, that it did not want better to regulate capital punishment; it simply stopped capital punishment. The amendment is a call for these experiments to be banned.
	It is said, too, that the embryos will be allowed to live for only 14 days. We do not believe that that answers the point that we are now crossing an entirely new ethical boundary. Many claims have been made for this research. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State cited Lord Winston as a supporter of the Bill. Indeed, Lord Winston is a supporter of the Bill, but he is also a lukewarm supporter of such research. He said:
	"If the hybrid embryo thing doesn't go through, it in no way shakes the body of science. It's not about embryos that can survive, or viable monsters. Nothing like that. It's a nice adjunct; a useful extra. But if we don't have that resource, it won't fundamentally alter the science of stem cell biology."
	Let us compare that lukewarm support from Lord Winston, who is admittedly a supporter of the Bill, with what the Secretary of State said:
	"That development is recognised by scientists across the world as an essential"—
	I emphasise the use of the word "essential"—
	"building block for establishing cures for many life-threatening diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's."—[ Official Report, 12 May 2008; Vol. 475, c. 1068.]
	Indeed, no one in the House denies that those are appalling diseases. How wonderful it would be if we had some realistic way of curing them, but there is no overwhelming or large-scale body of scientific evidence that suggests that such research, which crosses the ultimate boundary between animals and humans, will cure anything. That is our point.
	My point of view is backed up by a letter written by scientists from "across the world", to quote the Secretary of State. It was written by Professor Scolding of Bristol, Professor Chopp of Detroit, Professor Franz of Munich, Professor Mackay-Sim of Queensland and Professor Martin of Melbourne and was published in  The Times only this Friday. What did it say? It said:
	"In particular, given the current state of more conventional embryonic stem-cell research, of adult stem-cell research and induced pluripotent stem-cell research, there is no demonstrable scientific or medical case for insisting on creating, without any clear scientific precedent, a wide spectrum of human-non-human hybrid entities or 'human admixed embryos'...As scientists and clinicians actively involved in stem-cell research and regenerative medicine, we do not hold a single common view about the relative merits, ethics and potential of adult v (conventional) embryonic stem cells. But we all believe that extravagant claims regarding the purported merits of human-non-human interspecies embryos are mistaken and misleading, and that such research would damage public confidence and support, to the detriment both of the cause of stem-cell science and, ultimately, of patients."
	I very much hope that all right hon. and hon. Members have a chance to go to the Library to read that important letter.
	The public have been misled—cruelly, in many cases—into thinking that such research could lead to early and useful cures by exaggeration, misinformation and hyperbole.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend has studied these matters carefully and is making an interesting case. Does he think that the Prime Minister, too, is being misled, when he thinks that many people might be better off if such research were allowed to continue? Does my hon. Friend think that the Prime Minister's intervention will probably mean that more people support my hon. Friend on this important issue?

Edward Leigh: I do not want to get involved in the politics of the issue. I have already made the point that there is no overwhelming body of science to suggest that useful research will result.
	Contrary to what has been said, the provisions apply not only to cybrids—when the nucleus is removed from an animal egg and replaced with a human nucleus—but to the creation of chimeras, which are a mixture of animal and human cells, and true hybrids, which are created by fertilising an animal egg with human sperm or vice versa. That is truly pushing the boundaries, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) has tabled an amendment on that point. It is true that all those creatures have to be destroyed within 14 days and they cannot be implanted in a woman or an animal, but to listen to the press one would think that only cybrids were involved. In fact, the Bill legalises true hybrids, which are genuinely and absolutely 50 per cent. animal and 50 per cent. human.
	It is not entirely true, as we so often read, that cybrids are only 0.1 per cent. animal. Roger Highfield, who is the science editor of  The Daily Telegraph and does not normally support my views on many things, says that at the early stages of embryo development animal DNA is as much as 50 per cent. of the mitochondrial DNA. Of the mitochondrial DNA created in cybrids, as much as 50 per cent. might be animal, so it is not quite true that such early creatures are 99 per cent. human. Of course, if that is true, they are not just things; although they are anormal, they are potentially like human embryos—they have all or most of the genetic make-up of a human being.

Ian Gibson: Can the hon. Gentleman inform the House of the difference between animal DNA and human DNA—for example, in terms of the number of base sequences? Is there much difference? Is he 99 per cent. related to a monkey?

Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is trying to blind us with science, and his science is not even correct. I have cited the science editor of  The Daily Telegraph. All I can say is that he thinks that in the early stages as much as 50 per cent. of the mitochondrial DNA might be human. That is his view. I accept that there is no overwhelming scientific consensus one way or the other, but for that reason we should be extremely cautious about how we proceed.
	On a slightly lighter note, I was today e-mailed by a scientist, who told me that I had got it wrong and that I should not worry about admixing animal and human embryos because we have a large number of animal genes. He told me that I was 30 per cent. a daffodil and 80 per cent. a mouse. I am not sure that even my greatest political enemies would say that I was 30 per cent. a daffodil and 80 per cent. a mouse. I do not believe, with my soul or my brain, that I am 80 per cent. a mouse or 30 per cent. a daffodil. I think that the human race is special and different from the animal race, and that we should take the issue seriously for that reason.

Evan Harris: I am keen to defend  The Daily Telegraph: Roger Highfield said that 50 per cent. of a cybrid's mitochondrial DNA might come from a human and 50 per cent. from an animal, but that is not inconsistent with a very small percentage overall coming from the animal. Over 95 per cent. of the DNA in such a cybrid is nuclear DNA. He is talking only about the split of less than 5 per cent.—probably less than 1 per cent.—of the mitochondrial DNA.

Edward Leigh: The science editor went on to say that mitochondrial DNA is very important. As a medical doctor, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that tiny changes in DNA can cause very serious illnesses in adults, so the point is not minor. Even if he does not agree with me on that issue, if he is absolutely convinced that we are talking about a cybrid that is 99 per cent. human, surely he must accept the argument that it is ethically a being, and not just a thing. We should therefore be careful about how we treat it.
	As regards true hybrids, Sir Liam Donaldson said in his evidence to the Select Committee that
	"there was no clear scientific argument as to why you would want to do it"
	and that there was
	"a feeling that this would be a step too far as far as the public are concerned."
	It is said that there is a shortage of embryos, but we know that there is no such shortage because there are many left from IVF treatment. It is said that there is a shortage of eggs, but eggs are needed for cloning only. There is enormous difficulty even in animal-animal cloning—more than 270 attempts were necessary to create Dolly the sheep—and there are enormous difficulties with therapeutic cloning. How much greater will be the difficulty in creating an animal-human clone! I therefore do not necessarily accept the argument.
	Various red herrings have been brought up, such as the hamster test. The House was told on Second Reading that the research that we are discussing is already being done, but the hamster test was used only to test human sperm; a human entity was not being created. Today, we are talking about creating a new entity, so we should be very careful about what we do. We should ban what 21 other countries have banned. No other country in Europe is going down this route yet. In terms of embryonic research, we will almost be like a rogue state.

Brian Iddon: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why he is talking about entities, species and beings? The stem cells will be harvested at the blastocyst stage, so there will be 50 to 150 cells at the most. At that stage, there is no sign of development of an entity, being or species. Why is he misleading the House?

The Chairman: Order. This is a profound debate on which people hold very strong views, but I hope that it can be conducted with good humour and in good order. No hon. Member misleads the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that remark.

Brian Iddon: I withdraw it.

Edward Leigh: Of course I am not trying to mislead the House. I genuinely believe that what I am saying is the truth, as my conscience tells me. I would not dream of trying to mislead the House. My conscience tells me that an embryo is not a thing. It has been fertilised, and I believe that human life begins at conception. That is my personal view. It may not be the view of the whole House, but I think that I am entitled to put it forward, and it is the view of many scientists and moral philosophers. It is not a completely unusual view.
	It is said that cybrids are needed for research, but we know that no animal-human embryo will ever be developed into anything significant in any true sense. As we know, it cannot develop in anything like the way a human embryo can. For instance, Professor Newman of New York medical college was quoted on Second Reading. He has stated that the
	"growth and development of the human-cow hybrid clone would say very little about the potential of a human only clone to develop in the same fashion."
	Particularly in the public mind, the debate has been clouded by the sense that there are diseases out there waiting to be cured. Enormous advances have been made on stem cells—there have been 70 successful treatments with adult stem cells—but for the past 10 years, we have been told that useful developments on embryonic stem cells are just around the corner. I sat through most of the Second Reading debate, when the fact that 70 successful treatments have arisen from adult stem-cell research was mentioned several times. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has mentioned the prospect—we have heard this again and again—of two early clinical trials in the United States. We have heard that for many years, but nothing has happened.

David Burrowes: I also attended the Second Reading debate, when reference was made to those clinical trials. This month, the United States Food and Drug Administration refused to allow clinical trials using embryonic stem cells.

Edward Leigh: Let us make no mistake—what we are doing this afternoon is unique. No other country has gone down this avenue yet. When there is obviously no scientific consensus, no public consensus and no overwhelming proof that any good will come of it, do we really want to take that step?

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned false arguments, but the arguments that he is advancing are remarkably similar to those used by those in the Churches and elsewhere who opposed vaccination. Those people believed that it was uncertain that vaccination would provide the benefits claimed by scientists and that it was wrong to use a vaccination developed in cows, through cowpox, to solve a human medical problem, namely smallpox. They were wrong, and he is wrong today.

Edward Leigh: Nobody on my side of the argument has any problem with successful research, but the creation of an entirely new part-animal, part-human entity is different from research into smallpox.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Edward Leigh: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), but then I must make progress.

William Cash: I agree with my hon. Friend, particularly with respect to the available alternative therapies. The Nuremberg principles unequivocally state:
	"The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature."
	Is that not a good lesson?

Edward Leigh: We should all subscribe to that principle.
	It has been stated that research is needed, because it would help adult stem-cell research. However, Dr. James Sherley of the Boston biomedical research institute, who has visited the House and discussed the matter with hon. Members, has described that argument as "a contrivance". He has said that placing embryonic stem cells into adult tissue puts them in the wrong place, which is common sense. The very potency of embryonic stem cells means that they can cause tumours, and Dr. Sherley believes that such research is a blind alley.

Phyllis Starkey: rose—

Edward Leigh: I want to make some progress; if there is time, I will give way later.
	A vote for animal-human research is not a vote for hope; it is a vote for false hope, and we should not take that risk. It is not good enough to say that such research will be tightly regulated. In many ways, our age is one of technology giants and ethical infants—we are like children playing with land mines, because we have no idea of the dangers posed by the technology that we are handling.
	It has been stated that there is no prospect, and that there never will be, of creating humanzees, although that was attempted by Soviet scientists in the 1920s—sadly, they got nowhere. However, what Professor Hugh McLachlan of Glasgow Caledonian university has said is interesting:
	"Any species came to be what it is now because of all sorts of interaction in the past. If it turns out in the future there was fertilisation between a human animal and a non-human animal, it's an idea that is troublesome, but in terms of what particular ethical principle is breached it's not clear to me. I share their squeamishness and unease, but I'm not sure that unease can be expressed in terms of an ethical principle."
	That was written by a professor in a British university. There is a prospect, although I know that it is only tiny.
	Do we want to put all our faith in regulation? Can we not recognise a principle when we see it? We do not have to be Christians to believe that we are all created in God's image. We can surely accept that embryos contain the genetic make-up of a complete human being and that we cannot and should not be spliced together with the animal kingdom.
	The process that we are discussing will perpetuate the destruction of human embryos: 2.2 million have already been destroyed. I know that on Second Reading some cast doubt on opinion polls, but a recent Opinion Research poll said that 67 per cent. oppose the measure, and in 2007 the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's own poll said that 62 per cent. of people were opposed. Whatever the arguments about public opinion, I repeat that there is no public consensus.
	A lot of attacks have been made on Cardinal O'Brien—"How can this man talk about Frankensteins? We are not talking about monsters." However, a monster does not have to be big and ugly; it could be a monstrous creation. If an embryo could talk, perhaps they would echo what Mary Shelley wrote in "Frankenstein":
	"I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion, to be spurned at, and kicked, and trampled on."
	I believe that science is doing wonderful things, but it can also do terrible things. Science should be our servant, not our master. Science should not tell us what to do on all occasions; it can tell us what can be done, but should not necessarily tell us what to do. In history, science and even medical research has been corrupted and futile research should not be allowed.
	May I leave the last word to Professor Yamanaka, who was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness in the debate on Second Reading? The professor has turned away from embryonic stem-cell research and is a leader in adult stem-cell research. He turned away because of what he saw through the microscope 10 years ago:
	"When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realised there was such a small difference between it and my daughters."
	This measure is a step too far, and we should oppose it.

Gerald Kaufman: There is no doubt whatever that in one regard there is no difference between different sides and different hon. Members in respect of their consciences: we all wish to find cures for baneful afflictions. The current issue of  The New Yorker has an article about a chef in New York who has tongue cancer. Attempts have been made over a long period to treat him, without any success whatever. The man has gone to the highest medical authorities in the United States. They have done their best to treat him, but at the same time, they have not said, "If only we had new opportunities for research, one day or other we might find a cure for the appalling affliction that this young man had." Whatever our view on the issue or the amendment, there is no difference between any of us in the Chamber in this respect: if research has a good chance of abating or curing dreadful diseases that afflict the human race, we would want it to proceed.
	Every single one of us in the House has had personal or family experience of the afflictions that are talked about in relation to the clause. In the case of my family, an elder brother and an elder sister had their final years made appalling—for themselves and my family—by the affliction of Alzheimer's disease. If there were a realistic prospect of research bringing us a cure for or abatement of Alzheimer's disease, I would be first in the queue to support it.
	A nephew of mine, much younger than I, and a brother-in-law who was the husband of another of my sisters, suffered and eventually died from malign tumours of the brain—the cancer that was talked about. If there were a realistic prospect of doing something to prevent such deaths, or the death of my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Manchester, Gorton, Ken Marks, as a consequence of motor neurone disease—one of the most dreadful of all diseases—again, I would be first in the queue to support it. I am not talking about direct certainty because we can never have that, but the realistic prospect that there might be a cure or a way of preventing such appalling afflictions.
	There is, therefore, no difference between what any of us want. There is probably little difference between any of us in our desire to advance research that has a realistic prospect of alleviating, curing and preventing the kind of diseases that I have talked about. I have a problem with the clause, however, and I shall be voting with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for this reason. It is not that I do not want the ends that so many of my colleagues want, but the fact that there might be a minute prospect of successful research dealing with such matters. If it were on the agenda, those advancing the arguments in favour of the provisions would not be using the words "could" or "might" and would not be saying that there might conceivably be a prospect of making some advance. They simply want to try it. I saw a performance of "King Lear" the other day, and I was reminded of what King Lear said:
	"I will do such things,
	What they are, yet I know not".
	The provisions do not have a path; all they have is a possibility. The language, honestly used, by those who support the clause admit that it is a remote possibility.
	In addition, there is the question of the ethical nature of such research. We all have different views about ethics. One can be an atheist and have ethical views as strongly based as someone with the most profound religious convictions. The press have talked a great deal in a way that I do not much like about pressure from the Catholic Church on the issue. I have the most enormous respect for the Catholic Church, but I know that my Catholic constituents and Catholic priests would not claim that they had a monopoly on ethical views. I happen to have religious convictions, which feed into my views on the issues that we are considering.
	What is the nature of humanity? How far do we go and where do we stop? What are the limits and boundaries? If we permit the creation of a hybrid embryo now, what will we seek to permit next time, even though we have no idea where it will lead? There is no point in saying, "This is harmless." It may well be harmless—I do not know. However, if the issue were not controversial and difficult, the Bill would not be needed to authorise such research because it would already be lawful. The Bill is required to legalise hybrid stem-cell research, if it is to be permitted. If the matter were uncontroversial, there would be no need to place such controls on it. If there were no ethical dilemma or judgment to make, an Act of Parliament would not have to say, "Scientists, we're going to let you do this, but, by gosh, we're going to watch you and control you and make sure you don't break the law." With no dilemma, there would be no law to break.
	Every hon. Member is considering her or his conscience. The fact that we have a conscience is an ingredient of the debate. I believe—like, I am sure, most hon. Members—that the planet does not belong to human beings alone, but to every creature on the face of the earth. However, it is no reflection on a dog or a tiger to say that their genetics have not equipped them with a conscience. As part of our genetic origin, we have been equipped with a conscience and it is no reflection on any hon. Member's views or convictions when I say that if we have been endowed with a conscience, we have a duty to exercise it in making decisions about aspects of the Bill.
	I cast no aspersions on the way in which any hon. Member will vote at the end of the debate. All I can say is that, having considered the issues, the consequences and the appalling suffering of people whom I have known personally and whom I would have wished not to suffer, my conscience tells me to vote with the hon. Member for Gainsborough. I shall do that.

Mark Simmonds: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who has a neighbouring office to mine in the House and whom I have always found to be extremely charming and courteous. He is right to say that the debate is about individual conscience and that we all, irrespective of party, want science and research to proceed if it is possible to find solutions. Of course, that conscience needs to be exercised within an ethical framework. However, I do not agree that everything categorised as admixed embryos for today's debate shows no prospect of solutions to the genuine problems that exist. Indeed, I must correct him. He is incorrect to say that there has been no advance. Indeed, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has already granted two licences for cytoplasmic hybrid research, which entails various hurdles.
	It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend and fellow Lincolnshire Member of Parliament the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who is a distinguished and experienced parliamentarian. Although I do not agree with everything that he said—I will set out why—I respect and acknowledge his ethical position.
	There are three or four key reasons why I do not agree with the amendments that my hon. Friend and others have tabled. The first concerns therapies for illnesses and diseases. As I have said, research is already under way in that area involving cytoplasmic hybrids. There is no doubt that there is a shortage of human eggs for the production of embryonic stem-cell lines and research or that more are needed to enable such research to move faster. I am also keen to ensure that the House understands that there are significant differences between embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells, particularly given the versatility of embryonic stem cells, which can transfer themselves into almost every cell in the body, which adult stem cells currently cannot do.

Lembit �pik: The Motor Neurone Disease Association, of which I am president, would agree with the hon. Gentleman on the shortage of stem cells. It has said that
	there is no viable way of studying diseased human motor neurones in the laboratory, which is greatly inhibiting our understanding of
	motor neurone disease and its causes. The association continues:
	Stem cells derived from human-admixed embryos...offer us a potential source of motor neurones for research.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree with the association that using animal eggs as empty vessels
	for the creation of human embryos overcomes the limiting factor of the availability of donated human eggs.
	Although there are ethical issues in using animal eggs, surely it would be unethical not to use a methodology that could save 16,000 lives a year in the UK alone.

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He is probably aware that a research project has been licensed to look specifically into the area that he highlights.
	The other issue that we need to address, which also relates to why I do not agree with the amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, is the correlation between adult stem cells and cord blood cells, which do not negate the need for embryonic stem cells and embryonic stem-cell research.

Celia Barlow: I note with interest the hon. Gentleman's mention of umbilical cord blood. Does he support the call of the Anthony Nolan Trust, with which I have worked in the tragic case of seven-year-old Keiton Knight, a constituent of mine, for a national cord blood bank, which might easily help many thousands or even millions of people?

Mark Simmonds: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. There is a strong argument for a cord blood bankindeed, an attempt is currently being made to put one togetherand the Anthony Nolan Trust has done a lot of excellent work in this area. However, there are complexities to do with who pays for it. For example, should a cord blood bank be done on the national health service or can the independent sector make a contribution? They are the details that need to be worked through. Personally, I think that embryonic cord blood could make a significant contribution to disease resolution in the future.

David Burrowes: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for encouraging umbilical cord blood research, given the more than 80 treatments that have already been developed worldwide. My concern is about the opportunity cost imposed by the Bill. The cost of focusing our attention today, and resources and funding subsequently, on admixed embryo research is surely that other areas and ethical alternatives will not receive the attention and funding that they deserve.

Mark Simmonds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, but I do not agree with him. We must ensure that all possible avenues within the ethical framework that the House believes in are followed, to maximise the opportunities to find a resolution to such awful diseases and illnesses.

Sarah Teather: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Simmonds: I need to make some progress, but I will be happy to give way in a moment.
	I want to explain what amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would do and why they differ from the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough has tabled. Amendment No. 10 would outlaw the creation of true hybrids and amendment No. 11 would remove the creation of true hybrids from the permitted types of admixed embryos. It is essential to allow embryonic stem-cell research to continue, not only to assist some of the research projects that are already under way, but to assist induced pluripotent stem-cell research, because we do not know which types of research will provide the breakthroughs.
	I should point out to my hon. Friend that I was so concerned about the work that Professor Yamanaka was doing in Kyoto that I went to see his teamI had the good fortune to be out in Japan as a guest of the Japanese Government at the time. His team was keen for me to understand that embryonic stem-cell research is a key part of pluripotent stem-cell research. It forms a fundamental benchmark and comparison against which they can monitor and measure the progress of induced pluripotent stem-cell researchto such an extent that it is not allowed in Japan. That is why Professor Yamanaka has an embryonic stem-cell research facility at the university of San Francisco, in California.
	Scientists must be congratulated on their work in this field and their progress in stem-cell research so far. I am not anti-science; I simply think that we need to consider carefully the ethical and moral framework under which we allow scientists to continue some of this work. It will be useful if I explain the four different types of admixed embryos, because they are very different. I hope that when I have explained the differences, the House will understand why I think that we need to prohibit the use of what are euphemistically called true hybrids.
	The first type of embryo is the cytoplasmic hybrid, which is euphemistically called a cybrid, and involves removing the nucleus from an animal egg cell and replacing it with one from a human. It is essentially a vessel to compensate for the shortage of eggs that are needed to produce embryonic stem cells. As I have said, two licences for that practice have already been granted. I am sure that the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson)a distinguished scientistwill confirm that mitochondria, which are in the area around the cell nucleus, are neither animal nor human, but are autonomous. We need to clarify this aspect of the law, because the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 did not foresee cybrids coming along. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has therefore granted two licences for such work to be carried out, jumping ahead of legislation. If we agree with the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend, we will go back to the days before the 1990 legislation, which would not be a positive change.
	The second category of embryo is the human transgenic embryo, for which animal DNA is put into one or more cells of a human embryo. Both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA are inserted such that there will be a DNA sequence that controls the expression of the DNA already in the human sample. The hon. Gentleman made the point that DNA is not intrinsically human or animal. Sections contain proteins that are identical between animals.
	The third category of embryo is the chimera, which involves adding animal cells to a human embryo; it has two or more cells from different organisms. A chimera could contain two different mouse cells, such as a mouse stem cell in a mouse embryo. Chimera are useful research tools for the observation of disease and treatments. With these, the human cells significantly outnumber those from animals.
	The final category of admixed embryo is known as the true hybrid. It combines human gametesfor those who are uninitiated with the terminology, a gamete is either an egg or a spermwith animal gametes, which are also either egg or sperm. As was pointed out earlier, the 1990 Act allows such embryos under what is called the hamster test, but they are allowed to go only to the two-cell stage and must then be destroyed. If we allow true hybrids to continue, that limit would be extended to 14 days.
	Neither amendment No. 10 nor No. 11 suggests any change to the 1990 Act, which is subject to schedule 2, paragraph 1(f). Those who know about this issue will be aware that the hamster test is not used much. New technologiesspecifically intracytoplasmic sperm injectionshave significantly reduced the need for that type of assessment in clinics. Indeed, a distinguished stem-cell biologist, Dr. Robin Lovell-Badge, whom I shall mention again, told me in a letter only last week that the intracytoplasmic sperm injection had made the hamster test largely irrelevant.
	Originally, the Government were not going to allow true hybrids up to a 50:50 genetic material mix of animals and humans. However, in response to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, the Government changed their mind, and I would like the Minister, in her response to the debate, to put on record why they did so. This shifting position seems to undermine any consistent ethical position on admixed embryos.

John Pugh: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the briefing from the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Royal Society, the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council, which we have all received. It states:
	We are not aware of any current need to generate true hybrid embryos.
	Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on that?

Mark Simmonds: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will come to that specific point in a moment. He is right to make that point, however, although there has been some dissent in the scientific community since Second Reading as to whether that is or is not the case.
	So there has been a shift in the Government position, which seems to undermine the ethical situation. There was an extensive debate in the other place on the issue, but no reason seemed to be given, except that the Committee and those in another place could see no reason why true hybrids should not be included.
	The HFEA, many scientists and I believe that embryonic stem-cell research is necessary. It is a research requirement that the research could not be achieved by any other means than by embryonic research. As I have said, adult stem cells are different from embryonic stem cells. When visiting Newcastle university, I saw an embryonic stem cell, created from a human embryo, under a microscope, beating like a heart muscle. That has not been done using adult stem cells. When visiting Kyoto, it was clear that embryonic stem cells were essential for benchmarking for pluripotent adult stem cells, exciting though that prospect is.
	There are therefore significant differences between the different types of admixed embryos. I personally have no issue with the first three. I take issue only with true hybrids, which is what amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are about. The first reason is that, in the context of this debate, the Government have changed their position without clearly making their case. They are obviously uncertain about this.
	Furthermore, the scientific community has expressed serious reservations about true hybrids, and these were quoted by other hon. Members on Second Reading. Indeed, since last Monday's debate, the distinguished stem-cell scientist Dr. Robin Lovell-Badge has felt it necessary to clarify his position. Those who were here for the Second Reading debate will remember that he was cited as the leading scientist who felt that there was no need for human hybrid embryos to be approved under the legislation. He seems to have changed his mind, howeverwhether under pressure or otherwise remains unknown. During the oral evidence session of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, he said:
	I cannot think of a good experiment to do now.
	However, in a letter that Dr. Lovell-Badge wrote to me after the Second Reading debate last week, he confirmed that there were primarily three areas in which true hybrids could be useful. I shall outline each one quickly if I may. The first involves the hamster test, which was permitted under the 1990 Act. That would be allowed to continue if these amendments were passed today. The second area involves artificial gametes, making sperm from pluripotent cells. The Minister confirmed on Second Reading that she would not allow such a provision to be in the Bill at all. The third area involves the use of what is called somatic cell nuclear transfer to understand the mechanisms by which human somatic cells can be reprogrammed from one cell type to another. It is the rationale for the construction and study of cytoplasmic human hybrid admixed embryos, which will be allowed under the Bill even if my amendment is passed.
	Even if Dr. Lovell-Badge were alone in having clarified his thoughts, there would be a serious issue to debate, but many other scientists have also expressed significant concerns about true hybrids. Lord Winston is another example, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough was absolutely right to quote Sir Liam Donaldson's evidence to the Committee that there was no clear scientific argument for this measure, and that it represented a step too far. Indeed, many other scientists in the stem-cell field, who do not wish to be quoted, have grave reservations. This is an anonymous quote:
	I cannot understand why anyone would want to make true hybrids.
	These are true scientists in the field.
	There are significant differences between true hybrids and other hybrids. The true hybrid is not always at the human end of the spectrum. There is an ethical difference between a cell that is 99 per cent. human and one that is 50 per cent. human. Where is the principle for having a cut-off point of 50 per cent.? Should it be 50 per cent., 51 per cent., or 49 per cent.? Where will the legislation allow animal implantation if the cell is 51 per cent. animal rather than 51 per cent. human?

Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what the ethical difference is between 50 per cent. and 51 per cent., or between 51 per cent. and 99 per cent.?

Mark Simmonds: I think that there is a very big difference between a cell that has a 51 per cent. animal and 49 per cent. human make-up and one that has a 99 per cent. human make-up. That is, of course, what we are debating today and it is the issue on which the House must make up its mind. There is a also a significant difference between the transfer of genes and chromosomes and the mixing of gametes, which are sex cells.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify some of the issues we have raised. I wait to hear her response before deciding whether to put these amendments to the test later.

The Chairman: Perhaps I should remind hon. Members that we are in Committee and not in the House, so the form of address to the Chair is different from our usual practice. I apologise in that I misdirected hon. Members earlier by my own reference to the House, as opposed to the Committee.

Ian Gibson: Sir Alan [Interruption.] I know he is a great cricketer in the making.
	It is, I think, the desire of all stem-cell scientists one day to take an adult stem cell and reprogramme it to be just like an embryonic stem cellone that can, with growth factors, be turned into different types of tissues. That is the El Dorado and claims have been made that we are moving in that direction, particularly, as has been pointed out, on the basis of work done by Yamanaka at Kyoto university. It is important to be critical of his work and to be aware of how far it goes, as it has been used as an example to show that adult cells have something major to offer in this field.
	We use viral vectors in this area; they are called retroviruses and they have a habit of carrying genes into the chromosomes of the cells where the retrovirus is incorporated. I believe there are 20 sites in the particular cells that Yamanaka has looked at. There are 20 copies of this virus lying there, influencing how the particular genes work. It is argued by some people that the cells turn into embryonic-type cells. However, anyone who looks at Yamanaka's paper and dissects it in detail, as I have, will see that it is nothing like that. There are many problems and flawsand not just with the retrovirus, as it may be possible to get round that and find other ways to get the particular genes in to turn the cells back into the embryonic stage. Only very few of the colony cells that are treated develop any kind of resemblance to an embryonic cell. It is something in the region of 10 out of 50,000 cells that take on some of the properties associated with embryonic cells. Yamanaka is quite critical about it in his own paper. He says that there are
	minor genetic alterations, which could not be detected by karyo-type analyses, or epigenetic alterations,
	which may be necessary for cell induction. He continues:
	These issues need to be elucidated in future studies.
	He goes on to say in respect of the particular human cells influenced by the virus that it is unlikely at this stage for anyone to be able to commit to saying that these cells are very like embryonic cells. Even that work, then, leaves a lot to be desired.
	We have heard about adult cord cells. It is absolutely true that they are very effective in certain haemopoietic diseasesblood diseases, anaemias and so onbut they are unable to turn into other cell types. Clearly, there is a lot yet to learn about adult cells and cord cells.
	We still have the mystery of life around us. It is still possible to take a plant cell and grow the whole plant. I have always wondered about the secrets of plants without for a minute thinking of turning a plant into a human being. Gosh, we might get funding from some source to look into that! There is some magical mystery there that we have to discover, in which we can turn cells around into different tissues. Plants have something to offer in that area.
	With the particular cells that would be made, we could treat single patientsthat is truebut a culture of embryonic stem cells can be grown to treat lots of different patients with a particular condition. That is the El Dorado; that is the dream. Degenerative diseases can be handled in a larger arena than the single individual.
	Stem cells, too, are something quite new, and it is argued that we have not turned up anything yet. Stem cells were debated in this place in 2001, and were legitimised in terms of our being able to do any work with them. Their isolation was achieved in Wisconsin in the USA in 1998. The first licences in this country for doing any work with them came in 2003, so we are five years down the line and people are expecting major results that will turn the world around.
	How long does it take any good company in this country or in the USA to develop a drug? It takes 20 to 40 years. Do we ever hear people being critical of drug companies being slow? They have many, many tests to go through, which we should be glad about.

William Cash: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman said on Second Reading and in the light of what he is saying today about adult stem-cell research, will he not apply the same criteria to that as well, in that clearly a time will have to elapse before we can be absolutely sure about either type of research? Has not the Bill therefore been introduced too soon?

Ian Gibson: I agree absolutely, but what we are saying here in the rational world of debate is that there are different ways to make stem cells at an early stage to use for whatever we are going to use them forI shall return to that point in a momentbut we should be trying everything. There is no easy bet that one will be better than the other. We might need all different types for different types of disease. We should not allow ourselves to be differentiated into saying, Adults' are better than embryonic, and cord cells are the best of the lot. They are very restricted in what they can do.

Lembit �pik: On that very point, Professor Chris Shaw, professor of neurology and neurogenetics at King's college, London and a leading motor neurone disease researcher, has said something much in line with what the hon. Gentleman is saying:
	I cannot guarantee that embryonic stem cells from hybrid embryos will lead to a breakthrough, but I do think it would be a huge mistake to slam the door on this potentially important avenue of research. I believe that every effort should be made to understand the causes of MND because this is the only way we will develop really effective treatments.
	To hold off would mean taking a precautionary principle, which, in effect, would kill all those people who could be saved if we invested now to see whether this was the right way to the cure for MND.

Ian Gibson: I concur with that general view.

Sarah Teather: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is arguing that we need to keep all avenues of research open, but that is not the way that we deal with licences for animal research. An application to do research on a chimpanzee would be unlikely to be granted until people had demonstrated that they were unable to do that research on something less ethically difficultfor example, a rat or a hamster. Does the hon. Gentleman not see that there is a difference here?

Ian Gibson: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, but as a hard-nosed scientist, no. People work on the best organism to give them the answer that they want to see. They might not get the answer and they might even have to work on a worm to get the answer that they want. In other cases, people want to move up to the clinical situation. There, they have to go through rhesus monkeys and so on.
	I know that lots of people think that using animals is ethically wrong, but I tell the House this: scientists can be fallible, but they are tightly regulated and have to go through ethical committees in much of the work that they do. They have to get permission to use certain animals and they have to deliberate on how they are going to use them. They have to prove how things will be done so that there is no cruelty appertaining to that situation. Mice, rats, guinea pigs and other animals have all featured over the history of this period, but

Judy Mallaber: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ian Gibson: In a second. I want to make one point.
	On Second Reading, I said that I remembered a time in the '70s when genetic recombination was the bugbear. We were putting genes from another organism inside a bacterium or whatever. That caused trouble right across the USA. It was the scientists themselves, at a huge meeting and seminar, who disciplined themselves and ran a campaign on how to assess the dangers pertaining to such worknot just the dangers to themselves and the technicians in the lab, but the dangers to the public outside. The whole of Boston was up in arms about that kind of work being done at Harvard.
	When we look back now and ask whether those scientists were right, the answer must be yes. People may not like genetically modified plants, but gosh, if they have diabetes they will all be using insulin made from GM organisms. That was the big issue in the debate about genetic modification in this place. When it led to medical improvements in our conditions it was OK, but when it involved plants it was a bit different. We know that there are many other issues involved relating to big companies and so on, but I can tell the Committee that people really do support attempts to improve their lives, and insulin is a good example. If we had banned GM completely, we would not have the human insulin that has saved so many lives.

Judy Mallaber: Will my hon. Friend clarify his exchange with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather)? As a scientist, can he give some examples in which adult stem cells would be of no use in advancing experimentation? I understand from some of our debates that pancreatic stem cells do not exist in adults, whereas we have heard about motor neurone stem cell lines being developed in a dish from embryonic stem cells that could be used for compounds.

Ian Gibson: It is extremely difficult to obtain adult stem cells from the human body, although there are instances in which some stem cells are in better condition than others. The longer a stem cell stays in the body, the more likely it is that an ageing effect will lead to mutations, while an embryonic cell at the start of a process does not show any of the changes in DNA that we call mutations.
	It has been said that no tests are in progress. That is untrue: tests have started in the United States. Experiments have begun using human embryonic cells to deal with spinal cord injuries. Neuronal cells have been placed in people, and it has been shown that they repair spinal damage. I have not yet confessed today that I am a member of the Stem Cell Foundation, which includes some of the most distinguished scientists in the world who are interested in stem cells. Their sole motivation is not to be uncritical about stem cells, but to ensure that when the stem cell flood happensif it does happen in the next few yearswe in this country develop the technology.
	People must remember the combining of cells at Cambridge university, when monoclonal antibodies were produced. That work was stopped for various reasons, but the United States now has a $21 billion empire in the manufacture of monoclonal antibodies, which treat various types of cancer. We think that that can and should be done in this country.

David Burrowes: We could all point to stem cell research avenues, not least in relation to cord blood. We could point to the progress made in the fields of neurology, spinal cord repair, stroke therapy, cerebral palsy and aneuristic brain injury. There is potential in all those areas. As for the provisions in the Bill on human admixed embryos, will the hon. Gentlemanas a scientisttell me what evidence there is in favour of authorisation? Since 2003, there has been only one peer-reviewed published article. Is it not unprecedented to proceed on the basis of such scant evidence?

Ian Gibson: If I am honestand I am, I thinkif there had not been such tight regulations and such difficulties in obtaining licences, for all sorts of reasons, we might be further down the line. As a scientist, and as one who knows science backwards, I feel that we are constrained by all sorts of regulations involving health and safety and how we operate with cells in laboratories. However, the reason scientists carry out research is that they have a hunch, an idea, perhaps on the basis of earlier work, which makes them say I wonder what would happen if... That is how science advances. Scientists are falliblethey are not always on the right linesbut gosh, if the world did not have science we would not have the medical cures that we have, or, indeed, any understanding of climate change, about which many Members spout without knowing much about the science.

John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman mentioned tight regulation by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. What proposals has the authority actually turned down?

Ian Gibson: I cannot say exactly how many, but I know that it has turned down a few.  [Interruption.] Well, it might not have published how many, but it has not sanctioned every proposal that has come forwardand I would hope that it would not do so, because it is a tight, tough regulatory agency. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is wrong if he is implying that it is a walkover and that every proposal goes through. That is not true. Lord Winston in the other place says it is much too tight and regulatory and that it stops too much happening; he is against the HFEA precisely on the grounds that it does things of the kind that the hon. Gentleman implies it does not do.

David Chaytor: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not possible to argue, as some opponents of this proposed legislation have done, both that the Bill should not proceed because there is insufficient evidence of scientific progress and that it will take us down a slippery slope that will lead to a further relaxation of regulations in future? Either the research will not produce results some years down the line; or it will, and it will require a different regulatory framework at that stage.

Ian Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend for that observation. I think the proposed legislation allows for that in certain arenas, and for the fact that, as we said on Second Reading, many new discoveries and technologies will be developed out of human DNA understanding. The Bill must allow frameworks to be easily adapted. We do not want to have to have a debate every year for two or three days with Committees and so on; we need to make sure that we can take science on, and that when new science comes through that is useful, the legislation allows for that.
	I welcome the fact that we in this Chamber are debating this matter in the way that we are; that is important, because we are reflecting much of the feeling that there is among the general public, and that is how it should be. I am very keen for a Joint Committee to be established to look at ethical questions in the same way as certain organisations and charities do. There is no reason why we in this Chamber should not show ourselves in a good light by picking up on the general debates and arguments out among the public, and that is what we are doing now.
	What else could we do with these admixture cells? We could take nuclei from people with motor neurone diseaseI see the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) has suddenly perked up at the mention of MNDand put that into the animal kernel or cytoplasm. Why do we use animal cells, in any case? Because we cannot get human eggs at this stage. The scientific community would not want to use animal cells in elements of its research if it could get human eggs. So we could look at what these MND genes do up until the 14-day stage, when such admixed embryos would have to be destroyed. We could see if the genes start working and what they do to the cells at this early stage. This is how research is done: we might not see what happens, but we can ask questionsand I suggest to the House that these questions are very much worth asking.

Lorely Burt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Dr. Peter Hollands, the chief scientific officer of the UK blood bank, who says that cord blood stem cells have
	just as much potential as embryonic stem cells but without all the related objections and technical concerns?

Ian Gibson: No, I do not absolutely agree, because every scientist has their bailiwick; they have their favourite organism, or favourite type of experimentthey might work on just DNA or RNA or proteins, for example. As scientists cannot work on everything, I am unsurprised that different scientists' views reflect what they want to work on, because they will believe that that is the way forward. They are not always right in that, of course, but in this country they have every right to be able to pursue that.

Lembit �pik: On this point, as has been pointed out, Professor Chris Shaw believes that embryonic stem cells are very important in terms of MND. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there must be competition between parallel and different methodologies, as we do not know which ones might lead us to solutionsif we did know, we would already have cured diseases such as MND? Therefore, while there may be a favourite methodology in the end, we do not know which one it is yet. While I accept the ethical points, there needs to be such scientific diversification because we will not get things right first time.

Ian Gibson: I agree that the methodology of doing science is to have different laboratories in different countries at different times repeat what was initially thought to be the only way forward; we need to find out that other labs can repeat what somebody has claimed in a peer-reviewed journal.
	Another area on which we could work with these particular admixtures is that of the effects of hormones and drugs at an early stageuntil 14 days and so onon the expression of certain genes. Some people have done such work. I know that it is under wraps at the minute, because that is how science works now; it is secret in some ways, because commercial interest is involved. Some drugs have been developed using embryos and these effects, and some people think that this will be what they will be used for.

Geraldine Smith: Surely this is not just about what scientists know; it is about what they do not know. Could it not be that if one uses animal eggs, one is distorting the research, and one might get a different result if one were to use human ones?

Ian Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I think that scientists are a craven bunch of conservatives; they do not really take risks, and they do things because they are part of a network of people who support their research by financing it from research councils, and to gain such support they must have a reputation and a track record. That has been very important in this country, not only in winning Nobel prizes but in having that underbelly of great support in our universities and colleges for doing research. That approach has developed because some internal monitoring of one another takes place. Charlatanry is not rampant in the scientific community, as it is in some other areas of public endeavour [Interruption.] That is another story.

Julie Kirkbride: rose

Ian Gibson: I am going to finish now, because although I could go on for hours on this matter, I am sure that even Sir Alan would not bat at the crease at Essex for as long as this.
	What fires me up about this issue is the letters that some of us receive. I know that the following letter is anecdotal and it is only one letter, but we receive lots of these. This person writes that they have
	a 42 year old daughter who is COMPLETELY disabled with multiple sclerosis. The only...movement my daughter has is to blink for yes and move her head from side to side for no.
	A famous movie that is out shows the same thing involving a very autistic Frenchman.
	The letter continues:
	She cannot speak, see very well, eat, except for tiny amounts of food...Her husband is her main carer and she is dependent...on him...She spends 20 hours each day in bed as M.S. is extremely fatiguing...There is no cure at present. The only hope is stem cell research. Please, when you are voting on the...Bill think of my daughter and what this research could do for her and for others like her, please do not deny them a possible cure.
	I am inspired by people writing to me out of the blue like that. I receive lots of letters like that, and I would be the last person to prevent our scientific and medical community from trying to develop the kind of cures that help people just like that.

William Cash: It is difficult to follow the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), because he presents his case in such a reasonable fashion and he is enormously knowledgeable. I was thinking about the fact that when our debates took place on these issues in 1984 the atmosphere in the House was dramatic; one might say that it was electric. Some hon. Members may recall the events. I believe that on Second Reading or Report one hon. Member broke the Speaker's Chairor rather the shelf on which the Speaker puts his paperssuch were the emotions at that time. Some of that resulted from the fact that a petition signed by 2 million people had been presented. I had proposed the idea of such a petition to the Life conference in August of the year in which I got elected. Perhaps I was a little presumptuous in doing so, but, on the other hand, I feel as strongly now as I did then about the question of boundaries, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) referred.
	When listening to the debate and the reasonableness with which hon. Members who are favour of this research put their case, we are perhaps in danger of forgetting something that, as I see it, lies at the very heart of the issue. This is not just a matter of religious belief, which I certainly hold; it is also a question of practicalities. On Second Reading, I put a question to the House and to those in favour of the research, and I have been thinking about it a great deal since: even if this research could be acceptedI could not accept it, because I object to it in principleand it were to go ahead, for whom would it be made available? Who would benefit from it? The hon. Member for Norwich, North nods, and that is certainly an important question that we have to address. I am afraid that there is a group of people who are avowed eugenicists.
	As part of my research for this debate, I looked at a book by Professor David Galton of Barts hospital, a pre-eminent and knowledgeable person in this field. He raises that very question. He also opens Pandora's box intellectually and legislatively by making it clear that, as far as he is concerned, when it comes to regulation:
	It may ultimately be better to allow individuals to decide for themselves as to whether or not abortion
	in this instance
	is acceptable; it becomes a matter for personal conscience, something to be judged on a case-by-case basis. This may be the way to manage all the newer eugenic techniques.
	We want to get this matter out into the open. There is no doubt that there is a group of people who are avowed eugenicists [ Interruption. ] Well, David Galton himself appears to be one of that group.
	When it comes to the commercialisation of the procedures, Professor Galton points out that some 80 per cent. of assisted reproductive procedures are paid for privately. What troubles me is that, given the problems with AIDS, sanitation, lack of water and world mass poverty, there is no realistic prospect that those procedures will be made universally available, even if they were acceptable

John Bercow: I do not think that my hon. Friend need worry himself unduly that there is a great eugenicist conspiracy afoot, because there is not a scintilla of evidence for that. I well recall that my hon. Friend raised the question of whether the services that stemmed from the research would be universally or only selectively available. Does he also recall that he was told explicitly by the Minister of State responsible for public health that he was conflating and confusing the permissibility of the research with the arrangements for its commissioning? They are separate issues.

William Cash: They may well be, but I still ask the question, given the vast amounts of money involved. As I said, about 80 per cent. of assisted reproduction procedures are paid for privately. Whatever the objectives of relieving pain and suffering, or improving health, it is almost impossible that the benefits of such research could be made universally available.
	There is a strange irony in all this. Professor Galton says:
	The new eugenic technology
	as he calls it
	may become a vital weapon to prevent a future genetic deterioration of our species.
	He refers to the decline of some species as a result of the loss of diversity in the gene pool and points out:
	Our own genetic decline may take a different form. One hundred years ago some people would never have been able to reproduce. People with early-onset diabetes, premature heart attacks, malignant high blood pressure...may have survived into their reproductive period, but were too unhealthy to have children. Nowadays
	and herein lies the irony
	improvements in medical and surgical treatments allow such people to lead an almost normal reproductive life. Before the discovery and use of insulin
	as the hon. Member for Norwich, North pointed out
	early-onset diabetics had almost no chance of having children of their own.
	Professor Galton continues:
	The consequences of these medical advances are that parents can more freely transmit their disease-related genes to their children. These defective genes would be expected to accumulate from generation to generation in ever increasing numbers.
	It is important to reflect on that. He continues:
	To prevent this we may need in the future to screen embryos for disease-related genes and if possible to repair them at an early stage using the most powerful tools we have. The new eugenic technology may play a prominent role in this.
	That is the killer point.
	It is a strange irony, and in many ways a tragedy, that however beneficial the advances in medical science might have been, somebody who makes claims for eugenic technology now says that one of the cardinal arguments for this new embryonic researchI leave aside the issue of adult stem-cell research, which is the route that we should go downis to rectify the difficulties to which those advances have led. That is an extraordinary situation, which creates real dilemmas, but we need to reflect on the fact that life is not perfect. Furthermore, however much we might seek to do so, we cannot, for example, extend our lives indefinitely. At the heart of some of the moral questions that we must struggle with is whether we are not crossing a Rubicon to try to achieve the unachievable. It is not just a question of science or ethics, but of realities, on which all the best morality is ultimately based. We must be extremely cautious. The idea that the research would be available primarily for those who could afford it is very worrying. I noted with considerable concern Professor Galton's comments about that.
	I also read a newspaper articleI think that it was in the  Evening Standard last week.  [Interruption.] I do not vouch for its veracity; if it was wrong, I stand to be corrected. It suggested that some of the people involvedI might as well mention their names, as they were in the public presssuch as Professor Ian Craft and, I think, Dr. Taranissi, were earning phenomenal amounts from such research: between 3 million and 5 million a year. I hope that they were not misrepresented in any way.

Fiona Mactaggart: The people whom the hon. Gentleman quotes provide IVF treatment to infertile women. They are not doing research of the kind discussed under the clause. The amount of money that people are able to make through IVF treatment is a sign of how desperate many women are to have children.

William Cash: I could not agree more that there is a serious problem for those who want to have children, and I would not in any way want to diminish any opportunities that they might have to do so. The bottom line is that when we move into this other kind of research, which is interconnected with the products of IVF research, we need to be extremely wary about exposing ourselves to the serious possibility that huge sums of money could be used without the research being universally available. Whatever objections I might have in principle, there is also a problem with how it is available for the elite compared with how it is available for those who want it for a specific purpose.

Jacqui Lait: Can my hon. Friend help me, because I have a slight difficulty with his concept that the expense of the research would mean that few people would be able to benefit from its positive outcomes? He could compare the cost of stem-cell research with that for research in other areas in which some of the basic pharmaceutical companies are already investing, and bear in mind the good taut conservative concept that the price comes down thereafter because the treatment is widely available. Would he perhaps like to draw a parallel with the cost of stem-cell research and its availability to the many hundreds and thousands of people across the world who suffer from these debilitating diseases?

William Cash: I perfectly understand that argument. I am not suggesting that we should stop all research. It is just that as far as I am concerned, while we have alternatives such as adult stem-cell research, which I believe can be further developed, we should not go down the route of embryonic cell research. Ultimately, that crosses the boundaries that I personally regard as unacceptable. I take my hon. Friend's point, but I still worry about the matter a great deal.
	On the question of Dolly the sheep and the developments in that field, I went through the Medical Research Council accounts some years ago and I think I am right to say that the Roslin institute, which is headed up by the MRC, sold the patents for Dolly the sheep to a commercial enterprise for 1. I found that pretty astonishing, and it causes me to worry about the commercial aspects of the operation and the research. We need to be conscious that there is a vast amount of commercial investment in this field, and research is not done exclusively for altruistic purposes, although that may play a part in the process. That needs to be put on the record.
	Finally, I have already made a point about the Nuremberg principles. It seems quite clear that we ought to have a provision in the Bill, one way or another, that excludes embryonic cell research when adult stem-cell research has been proved viable. If adult stem-cell research becomes viable, it should then be the only kind of research available. It is ultimately about the dignity of man. This is not exclusively a question of religious belief. People with many different religious convictions hold the same views as I do, as do other hon. Members who have signed the amendments.
	The figure of 14 days seems to me to be somewhat arbitrarywhy not 12, or 16?

Robert Key: Oh, please!

William Cash: My hon. Friend says, Oh, please! as though he thinks that what I am suggesting is completely absurd. Would he be kind enough to intervene if he wishes to do so?

Robert Key: Yes indeed; I am delighted to do so. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose argument I find very interesting.
	The point about 14 days is a scientific fact; it is the appearance of the primitive streakthe point at which brain cells start to differentiate. Before that there is a completely different scientific situation. That is why the period of 14 days is significant and quite different from 13 or 15 days.

William Cash: My hon. Friend appears quite certain of that. Fourteen days is the figure that is always given, but I have heard from other sources that it could be 12 or 16 days in certain instances. As with so many things, there are variations despite the fact that an arbitrary figure appears to have been chosen. We have a difference of opinion about that.
	Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) was in debate on the Today programme with the chairman of the Medical Research Council. The chairman was being pressed; what it boiled down to was that he accepted that there were two possible ways of dealing with the research, but instead of answering the question why one should be chosen rather than the other he simply said that it was important to pursue both and that we should not be constrained as to which we decided to use.
	That is the argument to which the MRC is committed, but some of us on the Conservative Benches profoundly disagree. We believe that adult stem-cell research is a viable alternative, although no doubt more work will be needed to pursue that research. However, the same point applies to embryonic stem cell research. It seems to me that until the matter has been resolved there should be a provision in the Bill to ban embryonic research, to guarantee that we do not end up making the wrong choice.

David Drew: I rise with some trepidation, given the arguments we have heard from eminent scientists and ethicists. I shall speak narrowly to my amendments Nos. 44 and 43, which are designed to probe the Government, although I shall consider the right thing to do if we do not receive clarification.
	The issue is simple. Are we to allow human genetic modification or are we looking for other forms of scientific evolution? I feel strongly about the subject of genetic modification, as many people realise. I have not spent the past 11 years in this place opposing genetic modification, in terms of both crop evolution and, more particularly, the evolution of animal species, only to allow human genetic modification to slip in through the back door.
	I want the Government to make it clear where they stand and firmly to restore the view we expressed in the 1990 legislation when we said that we were against the genetic modification of human beings. I see no reason for changing that stance. However, every time I read the relevant parts of the public consultation on the Billparagraphs 5.33 to 5.38I am even more confused about the Government's stance. On the one hand, they say:
	The possibility of being able to 'repair' gametes or embryos raises the concern that it could be difficult to distinguish between what would constitute 'repair' and what might be thought of as enhancement.
	I take enhancement to be what I would describe as true genetic modification. On the other hand, the conclusion of the public consultation states:
	The Government proposes that the prohibition in the HFE Act on genetic modification of embryos for reproductive purposes should continue and be extended to gametes used in treatment. We invite views as to whether the legislation should include a power for Parliament to relax this ban through regulations (rather than primary legislation) if assured of safety and efficacy.
	However, the Government also seem rather open-minded about the view of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which basically said that there should not be an absolute prohibitionabsolute is the key wordon the genetic modification of embryos in research. It also said that Parliament, through regulations, should be able to relax the existing prohibition on genetic modification as regards embryos and treatment in tightly controlled circumstances, if and when the technology is further advanced.
	When the Chairman of Ways and Means was in the Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) referred to hitting the ball all over the place. To use another cricketing metaphor, it seems that we want to hit the ball every which way, but we are not sure which strokes we are playing, and whether we can be caught out if we play the wrong stroke. I want the Government to be absolutely clear that they are against the genetic modification of human beings. That might be the direction in which research is taking us, but whatever one's views on other aspects of the research, and whether or not one is in favour of hybrids and the scientific measures that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), the Conservative Front Bencher, explained excellently, I want to know whether the Government will rail at the idea of human genetic modification being made possible at this stage.

Anne Begg: One of the main cures that being developed is gene replacement therapy, which is particularly relevant for people with single gene defects. It involves the defective gene being replaced with one that is not defective. Does my hon. Friend think that science should not go down that route? If so, what is the difference between that technique being used once a child is born, and it being used before a child is born?

David Drew: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, and it is to do with the point about repair as against enhancement. If the Government clarified where they were drawing the line, perhaps I would feel much more confident that I was doing the right thing when I went through the Lobby tonight. As we all know, tonight's vote is a conscience vote. I do not have any expertise on the subject, but I feel a great deal of nervousness when I am given to understand that we are considering modifying human beings, whether at a preliminary stage, as my hon. Friend says, or subsequently. The Government should be very clear about the issue, and should set out in primary legislation what is entailed, and what they feel should be allowed. I should prefer that to what I suspect is happening in the Bill; I suspect that it would ensure that, as science evolves, we may be able to catch up with that evolution through secondary legislation.

Gordon Prentice: But say that 7 per cent. of people who develop motor neurone disease have a genetic predisposition to it; does my friend believe that it would be right to screen out the genes that mean that someone will develop that crippling disease later in life?

David Drew: If we had the means to do so, the answer is of course, but I am asking how that is done. I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), because I share many of his misgivings. Hon. Members might agree on the outcomes, but there are serious dilemmas about the means by which we achieve those outcomes. One such issue that I feel strongly about is how we define, and in my case how we oppose, human genetic manipulation or modification.

Lembit �pik: Motor neurone disease is an interesting example, because a proportion of people who develop the disease have familial genealogy, but a further proportion of people do not have a genetic history of the disease in their families. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the people who are researching that point are not the people about whom he is concerned, because they act with the greatest responsibility and want to find medical answers? On that basis, if such research were regulated properly, does he agree that it would be limited to medical solutions for existing human beings? If we limit such research through proper regulation, there will be no problem with the fly-by-night opportunists whom the hon. Gentleman has described.

David Drew: I agree, but, as the hon. Gentleman has said, how can one know that such research will be limited to genuine purposes? I do not want to raise eugenics or the modification of babies, because that would involve extreme language, which would not help the debate.
	As has been said, we are going it alone in this country. Many countries have chosen clearly to outlaw human genetic modification in legislation; perhaps their scientists did not have the same head start as scientists in this country, so the issue does not pose such a challenge for them. Nevertheless, I want my right hon. Friend the Minister to make it clear what the Government are allowing. To answer the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), the Government should say what is illegal and what will remain illegal for the foreseeable future. Until science teaches us otherwise, no scientist should be prepared to contemplate such research.
	I do not want to speak at greater length, because my amendments are precise. Sadly, the issue has rarely come up in the wider ethical debate, which is why I make no apology for tabling my amendments. We should debate the point, even if it is considered to be marginal, and we must face up to it when we vote later. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can assuage my fears. At the moment, I am genuinely confused about where the Government are drawing the line, and whether they will contemplate human genetic modification or whether they are prepared to make it clear how they will rule it out.

Evan Harris: This excellent debate shows the benefit of a free vote on all Benches. There is certainly a free vote among Liberal Democrat Members, who hold diverse views, which will no doubt come to light as the debate continues. Our policy states that we support the use of cloned embryonic stem cells for research and therapeutic purposes, but this is a free vote, and I clearly do not speak for the whole of my party today. I also welcome the provision of sufficient time to debate the issue.
	As the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said, this is an issue of conscience, but that does not mean that it is a case of science versus ethics. As I stressed on Second Reading, both sides have an ethical viewpoint. We must respect the fact that many people find it impossible to support any of the legislation for moral reasons, while many of us feel duty-bound to support the legislation for moral reasons. My conscience tells me to vote for the measures in the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) is the only hon. Member to discuss the specific issues raised by clause 4. My understanding is that the Government are in favour of allowing admixed embryos, which include animal genes in an otherwise human embryo, just as at the moment human genes can be inserted into animal embryosfor example, to produce mouse models, which hugely improve scientists' ability to study human disease. Indeed, whole human chromosomes exist in the Down's mouse, which is a model of Down's syndrome in the rodent.
	It is also clear that the Government recognise that it would be wrong if an embryo due to be destroyed after 14 days could not be genetically modified if that was the best way in which the embryo could contribute to medical research. However, the Government and the Bill make it clear that there could be no nuclear genetic modification of any gamete or of a permitted embryo that would be implanted. The only potential, theoretical exception to that is mitochondrial transplantation, which involves changing the mitochondrial DNA to avoid the devastating inheritable consequences of mitochondrial disease. I am sure that that issue will be debated in the Public Bill Committee; it is, however, entirely different from germline genetic modification in respect of nuclear DNA.

David Drew: rose

Evan Harris: I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Stroud, and I hope that the Minister will seek to reassure him.

David Drew: Part of my confusion is that even at this late stage the Government have chosen to table a further amendment to clause 4. Perhaps that will help my understanding, but it shows that the legislation is, in a sense, a moveable feast. I hear what the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) says, but this is primary legislation and it is essential that we get it right. If things are still moving around at this time, that will not be helpful.

Evan Harris: I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have been watching the Government like a hawk on these measures. Their amendment is relatively innocuous; they have accepted finally a point made at length and effectively by Lord Mackay in the House of Lords.
	On Second Reading, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) claimed that the Bill was somehow a radical departure, or at least a departure, from the ethical principles underlying the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, particularly in regard to clause 4. I do not think that it represents such a departure. The hon. Gentleman correctly said that the 1990 Act encapsulated the Warnock committee's view that:
	The embryo of the human species ought to have a special status and no-one should undertake research on human embryos the purpose of which could be achieved by the use of animals or in some other way. The status of the embryo is a matter of fundamental principle which should be enshrined in legislation.
	The hon. Gentleman said that the Government were moving away from that, as they were seeking simply to ensure that Britain remained at the forefront of medical research. However, I do not think that that is right; the principles of the 1990 Act apply in this Bill. Embryo research will still be heavily regulated in at least five ways: no embryo research could be carried out without a licencethat would be a criminal offence, so the Bill is certainly no walkover in that respect; no embryo could be kept beyond 14 days; no research embryo could be implanted; researchers would have to show that it was necessary or desirable for medical research purposes to do the embryo research; and, finally and crucially, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), researchers would have to demonstrate that it was necessary to use embryos and that the same research could not be obtained by techniques that did not use embryos. It is critical to recognise that.
	The Bill is not at all a radical departure from the principles of the 1990 Bill. That legislation was very good and the Government of the time should be congratulated, as they were on Second Reading. In the 1990 Act, we see that the hamster test made provision that true hybrid entities should be created, albeit only up to the two-cell stage. No one, however, can argue that there is a huge ethical distinction between the two-cell, eight-cell and 16-cell stages. I am going to explore whether ethical distinctions can be made between different types of admixed embryos, but surely one cannot argue that it is okay for a two-cell entity to be created, but it is not okay for a four-cell entity to be created if the other requirements are metthat it is necessary or desirable for medical research and there is no other way of doing it.

Sarah Teather: My hon. Friend says that none of the research will be possible without a licence, but he will also be aware that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has turned down only one application for a licence, and that decision was overruled on appeal. It is difficult to say that the process is tightly regulated.

Evan Harris: I do not think that that is right, and I wanted to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) in an intervention. The way in which science works is that before someone gets to the HFEA stage, they have to get funding. They must get ethical approval and have a research proposal. That is a huge job. People's jobs depend on being able to get permission, and scientists apply to the HFEA only at an extremely late stage. It would be a scandal if they had public or charity funding and subsequently failed to get that permission. In many cases, there is an iterative process between the authority and scientists, and they do not get approval until the end of a long process. That is what Lord Winston and others, including those at Newcastle, complain about at length. They complain that the process is too burdensome; other hon. Members are now complaining that it is not burdensome enough. If no one is happy, that suggests that the authority has it about right. A walkover it is not.

David Burrowes: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that when considering keeping all avenues open, there was a proper framework in the 1990 Act that had respect for the human embryo? It did not legalise full hybrids, but via the hamster test it legalised the testing of human sperm. There is a distinction there, under a framework, that is based on some ethical principles.

Evan Harris: I do not think that that is right. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that a human-animal hybrid embryo is a human embryo. If it is, it is subject to the restrictions in the 1990 Act, so it has the same special status. If he thinks that it is not and that it should not have as much status, he should at least be reassured that the measures in the Bill go over the top in giving it the same protection as for a human embryo. I am not suggesting that he is having it both ways; he cannot have it either way, I am afraid.

John Pugh: Does my hon. Friend not accept that the hamster test does not give a rationale for extending the life of hybrids to 14 days? That is something different, and it needs a different ethical justification.

Evan Harris: Absolutely. As I said, there has to be a scientific justification. We could not justify creating a true hybrid embryo simply because someone else has done that to test sperm, but if there is another reason to do it, no new ethical question has been opened up since the Conservative Government and the House passed the 1990 Act and allowed the hamster test. That matter was heavily debated in both Housesit was not snuck through. There were debates and Divisions on that matter in 1990, and we should not be going backwards.

Andrew Slaughter: If the hon. Gentleman is right about the 1990 Act and true hybrids, which I think he is, where does he think those on the Conservative Front Bench stand in making the distinction they make? According to the briefing, which was partially quoted before, the preponderance of medical opinion appears to support all four types of admixed embryos.

Evan Harris: I shall come to that point. I would not say, however, it is just the view of those on the Conservative Front Bench. Hon. Members in all parties have sympathy with the amendment, and I shall deal with it in due course.
	I want to stress that we are not the only country that permits such research. Significant numbers of countries do so. Indeed, countries such as the United States have no regulation in the private sector. The fact that we have tight regulation and, yes, burdensome regulation, means that many scientists recognise that this country has deliberated over the issue and that there is a framework. The flipside, I suppose, of the fact that most scientists are successful is that there have been no prosecutions for research on embryos without a licence, and there are plenty of people looking for opportunities to make accusations. To the extent that no prosecutions indicates success, one can say that the process has been successful.
	The 1990 Act, together with the 2001 cloning regulations, voted for a free vote in the House, permitted cybrid embryo creation and research. The legal advice that the HFEA got and that the Select Committee on Science and Technology got was that the 1990 Act and the regulations permitted it. Whether it was envisaged in 1990 is a separate matter, but the Government are putting the legal advice and the HFEA policy that is based on it into statute. People who are worried about such matters should be grateful to the Government for placing them on to a statutory footing so that there is clarity and we do not rely on the randomor perhaps not so randomviews of a judge or judges in the High Court or the Court of Appeal, and do not get bogged down in judicial review.

William Cash: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied about the authority's composition? Does he believe that it reflects the balance of opinion in the public arena?

Evan Harris: I would prefer not to go into that because I am sure that we will revert to it and not sure whether it is in the remit of our discussion, but it has been debated extensively in the House of Lords.
	Let me consider whether embryonic stem-cell therapy has uses. I share the concern about giving false hope. I hope that the record will show that I have never claimed that we are considering the certain prospect of cures and treatments for millions of people with serious diseases. Scientists hope that that will happen, and there is an expectation that we will learn about at least the causes of disease and be able to test treatments in a Petri dish in a cell model, which is difficult to obtain. It is hard to get Parkinson's disease cells from patients because they are in the brain and there are ethical questions about obtaining them. However, if they can be grown from an embryonic stage and drugs can be tested on them, that must offer hope.
	Although the letter in  The Times was signed by several people from all over the world, the group is not authoritative. If one asks authoritative groups of people, who study the matter in scientific committeesthe Academy of Medical Sciences, the Royal Society, the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the medical research charities, which jealously guard the money that they raise and do not want to waste it on useless treatmentsone finds that they all support the research. There is a fundamental flaw in the letter from Professor Scolding and others, which states:
	We... question the scientific validity of proposals to create such embryonic combinations currently before the UK Parliament.
	The UK Parliament is not deciding whether those entities should be created but whether the HFEA should have the ability to approve a licence, if a scientific case is made to show that it is necessary or desirable for medical research, and there is no way to do that that does not involve embryos.

Lembit �pik: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Evan Harris: Yes, if it is to do with motor neurone disease.

Lembit �pik: How did my hon. Friend guess? People do not assume that the cure for degenerative diseases will necessarily be found quickly or, indeed, in time to save current sufferers. However, there is a belief among sufferers and organisations such as the Motor Neurone Disease Association that the research may be the necessary path to finding a cure and that, once we have achieved that for one disease, there will probably be knock-on learning effects for other diseases, enabling us to unlock a great deal of medical knowledge by allowing the pursuit of research. However, people are hard nosed about itit is not only about hope.

Evan Harris: Indeed. I agree and pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his advocacy of that cause.
	The outrageous allegation has been made that there have been no treatments despite conducting such research for decades. That is simply not the case. Adult stem cells have featured in clinical trials since the 1950s and it would therefore be a shock if we did not have therapies as a result.
	The first human embryonic stem-cell lines were derived in the UK by Stephen Minger's group at King's college in 2003. The first ES cells worldwide were created only in 1998. Since it takes 15 years to get a molecule into patients, it is not surprising that it will take some years yet to experience the clinical benefits of the research. Arguing that it has not been done in five years, so it should therefore be thrown out, is preposterous and the worst argument that I have heard from opponents of the research.
	Proposals for trials are currently being considered. It is not true that the US Food and Drug Administration has rejected an application for a trial of spinal nerve repair. It has put a clinical hold on the trial while it asks further questions. However, the relevant company is optimistic that it can pursue it. There are also applications for treating macular degeneration using pigmented epithelium cells from an embryonic derivation. We have to be patientbelieve me, scientists are as frustrated as parliamentarians, if not more so, and patients are more frustrated yet.
	The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) felt that there was an opportunity cost because of all the effort going into embryonic stem-cell research rather than adult stem-cell research, but that is a misunderstanding of how science works. It is very difficult to secure funding for something if there is another way of doing it. Scientists have to put their proposals up for peer review, which is designed to say, This is the wrong way to do it; do it this way.

David Burrowes: I appreciate that progress can be made only on the basis of peer-reviewed evidence, but is it not also the case that cytoplasmic hybrids are based on one peer-reviewed article from China in 2003? There has been no follow-up and no further evidence on which to base whether that work has any value.

Evan Harris: It is certainly true that the only blastocysts created from cybrid research have been in China. The hope is that that research will be replicated, because without doing so we cannot show that it works. Saying that we should not be allowed to replicate such research is not a solution to the problem of whether it actually works.
	Let me deal with the ethical objections. There are those who object to the measures ethically, because they believe that life begins at conception and therefore they object to all embryo research. Now is not the time to have that debate, but they will vote against all the measures in the Bill, just as they did in 1990, and they have every right to do so. However, some people have picked out hybrid embryos as a separate ethical issue, even though they might not oppose embryo research. However, that is peculiar. Are such people arguing that hybrid embryos are too human and therefore ought to have greater protection than human embryos? I do not understand that, and nor did the Health Committee. If it is ethically acceptable to use up and destroy fully human embryos, with all the potential that they have, as has been done, how can it be right to provide hybrid embryos, which clearly have less potential, in terms of viability, with greater protection? That does not make sense.
	I do not understand what the ethical difference is with true hybrids. I asked the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) what the ethical difference was between a 50 per cent. hybrid and a 99 per cent. human hybrid, but all he said was that it involved sex cells. Sex cellsgametesare indeed involved, but just because the word sex is used does not mean that ethical problems arise in the science, so I still await an answer to the question as to what the ethical objections are.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about his second categorythose who are quite happy with what one might call traditional research, but who are anxious about hybrid research. I think that I fall into that category. The reason is not to do with a philosophical debate on the difference between a hybrid and a wholly human cell; rather, it is to do with a general feeling in societyor perhaps a failure on my partthat we do not have an understanding of the risks involved should something go wrong, a treatment be developed or a hybrid cell in some form be put into a human. There is a general fear in the outside world,but no clear argument from the scientific community about how small those risks are.

Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman can be absolutely reassured that there is no prospect of any hybrid embryo being implanted or injected into anyone or anything. That is clear in the law. I also doubt very much whether any stem cells derived from such a hybrid embryo would be the ones going into treatments. It is much more likely that hybrids will be used to perfect the technique, so that we do not use up precious human eggs. Only fully human embryos will be the source of stem cells and stem-cell lines that could be used for treatment. That work is some way off, although we shall deal with the issue in the next group of amendments.
	I want to finish on whether there is any prospect of true hybrids being used. It is most unfortunate that leading scientists' views have been traduced in this debatewe had that on Second Reading and we have had it again today. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness cited Robin Lovell-Badge of the National Institute for Medical Research as saying in his evidence to the Joint Committee:
	I cannot think of a good experiment to do now.
	However, Dr. Lovell-Badge went on to say that
	but I am sure someone will think of a good experiment.
	What he meant was that, because he did not work in that area, he personally could not think of a good experiment to do at the time he was being asked. It was eminently reasonable for him then to come back with answers. That is what we expect Select Committee witnesses to do. That does not mean that he has changed his mind, and it is unfortunate that matters should be characterised in that way.
	On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), who is not present, said that scientists
	said that they are puzzled as to why such experiments should take place.[ Official Report, 12 May 2008; Vol. 475, c. 1099.]
	In his letter to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness, Robin Lovell-Badge said:
	I have never once said that I am 'puzzled as to why such experiments should take place'.
	He went on to make three points that were not fully dealt with by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness and with which I shall deal briefly. First, the hamster test is available under the 1990 Act. I know that amendment No. 10 does not seek to remove it, although I question why. If one is against true hybrids, one should be against true hybrids. Dr. Lovell-Badge makes the point, in his letter, that mouse eggs are better characterised and better for that purpose. They are used abroad for the test, but they cannot be used in the UK because the 1990 Act is restricted to hamster cells. That is silly and does not make sense.
	The second point was that if there were progress in research into in vitro derived gametesthey have been called artificial gametesthat would need to be tested. It is true that the Government are not yet looking favourably at the prospect of allowing stem cell derived gametes to be used in the treatment of the thousands of people who have survived cancer and cannot create their own gametes, but that does not mean that they have any intention of banning research into those things. That is permitted, and part of that research is to test whether research is working. It is unfortunate that that has not been recognised.
	Finally, Dr. Lovell-Badge made it clear that the cloning technique might require a comparison between cybrids and full eggseggs that have not been enucleatedto see whether there is anything nuclear in the egg that helps blastocyst formation. He did not say in his letter that the third issue was simply cybrids; he said that it was comparison with cybrids.

John Bercow: As the hon. Gentleman has said, the prohibition on implantation is explicit and the Bill is unmistakeably clear on that point. Will he take this opportunity to make it clear beyond doubt that it is not the case that the bulk of scientists who support the Bill are glumly resigning themselves to the reality that there will be a regulatory framework? Indeed, far from it; those scientists have been at the forefront of those arguing for a regulatory framework because they want to do the work ethically and on the basis that they can carry the country with them in the process.

Evan Harris: That is right. The hon. Gentleman puts it very well. The scientific organisations that I have mentioned made it clear in the briefing that they sent yesterday that true hybrids are necessary. In it, they list the sort of research that will be requiredfor example, into fertility and sperm function, early development and stem-cell researchand they urge us not to pick on true hybrids without having an ethical or scientific basis for doing so. The same advice comes from Mark Walport, the director of the Wellcome Trust, Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, the chief executive of the Medical Research Council, and Professor Martin Bobrow of the Academy of Medical Sciences. They say:
	By including 'true' hybrids within the Bill, it ensures that their status is clear and fully regulated, and that research using 'true' hybrids will be subject to robust regulatory safeguards.
	It is not only scientists who are making such calls. The matter has been considered by two Select Committees. The Select Committee on Science and Technology was unanimous on this issue, despite the rather non-unanimous presence, generally speaking, of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) on the Committee. However, even he endorsed it. The Committee said:
	We believe that there is a need to allow research using some forms of human-animal chimera or hybrid embryos, including but not exclusively cytoplasmic hybrid embryos, to proceed immediately. We recommend that the Government propose draft legislation which is immediately permissive, through regulation, to those areas of research it deems acceptable.
	The Joint Committee on the Bill was even more clear when it said that
	the Government's approach on this issue is misguided and rests on no sound point of principle. We can see no clear reason why certain categories of inter-species embryo should be permitted under licence and 'true' hybrids proscribed. We recommend that the HFEA should be left to judge which entities may be created, kept and used for research purposes under licence.
	That was a Joint Committee of both Houses, and experts were involved. I pay tribute to the people on that Committee who did not agree with the broad thrust, but recognised consistency when they saw it. There is no ethical basis or practical reason for distinctions, and I urge the House to support the passage of clause 4 without any changes.

Dawn Primarolo: A great deal of this subject has already been covered in the debate, but I want to respond briefly to a number of the points that have been raised and to refer to the Government amendments. First, it is important to put it on record that a lack of human eggs is creating a significant barrier to the continuation of embryonic stem-cell research. Researchers have looked for a pragmatic solution to the shortage, and they believe that they have found one in the form of animal eggs and in the creation of human admixed embryos.
	The Bill sets out a clear definition of human admixed embryos and will ensure that all such embryos are regulated and may not be created without a licence. The Government amendments reaffirm the purpose of the scientific definition in the Bill. Any licence application to create human admixed embryos for research will need to prove to the HFEA that the proposed use of the embryo is necessarynot simply that the scientists want to try itand that no other route of research would enable the development of the science to understand the development of the treatment.

William Cash: Who will decide what is necessary?

Dawn Primarolo: The statutory purposes are clearly laid out in the Bill, building on the provisions in the 1990 Act. I do not remember whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House in 1990. I was, and I remember that the matter was fully debated at that time, and that many of these purposes were considered.
	No human admixed embryo that has been created may be implanted into a woman or an animal, or be cultured for more than 14 days or after the appearance of the primitive streak. Equally, any research done using human embryos must satisfy the HFEA that it is necessary or desirable for one of the statutory purposes. This research is about giving scientists the ability, within clear boundarieswhich have been discussed in the House before, particularly in 1990within which to advance technologies that could help in the development of treatments for devastating degenerative conditions, in continuing research into male infertility and in learning more about what makes embryonic stem cells so different from any other cell.
	The use of animal eggs will provide a valuable resource to embryo research scientists, giving them the ability to perfect the techniques that could one day help to develop our understanding of diseases and to speed up the development of their cures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) made a very eloquent speech earlier. I make no apology to the Committee for saying that we cannot promise that this research will definitely lead to those treatments; it is an aspiration that it could do so, if it is permitted, along with the rest of the research that is being carried out.
	Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 41 and 42 would prohibit the creation of all forms of human admixed embryos for any purpose, including cytoplasmic hybrid embryos. A major barrier to continuing embryonic stem-cell research is the lack of human eggs for use in research, as they can be obtained only through the stimulation of a woman's ovaries. That procedure is not without risk, and the best eggs are quite rightly used in treatment. Researchers have been looking for a solution to the shortage, and they believe that they have found one in the form of animal eggs, which are widely available and believed to be as useful in the creation of embryos as human eggs. If successful, they could advance embryonic stem-cell research by many years.
	The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), in speaking to amendments Nos. 10 and 11, sought to prohibit embryos created from the mixing of human and animal gametesthe so-called true hybrids. I must admit that I was not clear about the ethical principle that the hon. Gentleman was drawing on. In fairness to him, however, let me say that that was also reflected in the way the Government proceeded in their consideration of the matter. The hon. Gentleman asked for an explanation.
	The Government took into account the arguments of the joint pre-legislative scrutiny Committeea Committee of this House and the other placewhich saw no clear reason to preclude such activity within the regulatory controls of the Human Fertility and Embryology Authority. Any project to create true hybrids would need to satisfy the research licensing criteria that the work is necessary or desirable for a statutory research purpose and that the use of the embryos is necessary. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who chaired the Joint Committee, said on Second Reading that
	once we mix in any elements of animal, the principle of using hybrids for research purposes is established...That is the point that the Committee was trying to make; once we go down that road
	which we already have
	it seems illogical to rule something out because of a particular mix.[ Official Report, 12 May 2008; Vol. 475, c. 1068.]
	The Government agreed with that conclusion.
	The Academy of Medical Sciences, the Royal Society, the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council have written to say that true hybrids offer significant potential for research to improve our understanding of infertility, sperm function and stem-cell developmentand must not be prohibited. Given that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness could not set out a clear reason for this particular deletion, I urge the House to resist his amendment.

Edward Vaizey: For the benefit of those of us who are close to supporting what is in the Bill, will the right hon. Lady help us on one specific point? Given that she has acknowledged that the Government were persuaded by the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, what were the Government's concerns about true hybrids before its report was published? Clearly, the Government had drawn a distinction before that report persuaded them otherwise.

Dawn Primarolo: I was not the appropriate Minister at the time, but I shall attempt to summarise the position. I think that we were concerned about some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness. In searching around to put the argument clearly on an ethical basis that drew the lines in logic and science, the Government had to admitI hope that the hon. Gentleman will do the same tonightthat we were simply wrong in our original decision. There was no such line to be drawn.

Robert Key: I would like to help the right hon. Lady, as I was a member of the Joint Committee. The real problem was that the scientists could not fathom the definitions laid down by the Department in the draft Bill; they successfully challenged them as being completely unworkable. A number of distinguished scientists, including Lord Winston, said that they simply did not understand what the Government were trying to say.

Dawn Primarolo: I am eternally grateful that the whole Government and Ministers in the Department of Health were able, through this process, to listen, learn and come to the correct decision. I sincerely hope that the Committee will do the same this evening and reject the amendment. Clearly, the public consultation, the drafting of the Bill, pre-scrutiny by a Committee of both Houses and then a full debate in the other place have demonstrated that the decision is now in the right place.

Mark Simmonds: Does the Minister accept that there is a difference between an embryonic cell that is a 50:50 hybrid and one that is 99 per cent. human?

Dawn Primarolo: What I am saying is that we are trying to be clear about what should be regulated and when it falls within the remit of the HFEA. I defy the hon. Gentleman to tell me the principle whereby we could define his proposition in law.
	Amendment No. 3 would prohibit the hamster test that was clearly allowed under the 1990 Act.

Mark Simmonds: Will the Minister give way?

Dawn Primarolo: No, I will not. Other Members want to speak and I am trying to make some progress. I have been absolutely candid with the House on this matter.
	The usefulness of the hamster test was mentioned in the evidence given to the Committee in 2007, which cited the value of using hamster eggs over and above other assessments of male fertility. In recent correspondence to the Department, Professor Lynn Fraser made a clear argument for the continuation of this work, citing the use of hamster eggs as the best option for testing treatments designed to increase the ability of human sperm to fertilise an egg. Such research is valuable in trying to find ways to overcome male infertility. Prohibiting its use and the use of this technique seems completely unjustified, especially as this prohibition would be a step backwards from the position enshrined in the 1990 Act.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) tabled amendment No. 44, which deals with embryos. The Bill allows for the alteration of the genetic structure of embryos for research purposes only. It prohibits the transfer of such embryos to a woman. That is underpinned by an international consensus that prohibits such practice and the Bill also reinforces the point.
	Government amendments Nos. 33 to 39 amend the definition of human admixed embryos. The Bill uses the term human admixed embryo as an umbrella term for four types of embryo containing human and animal genetic material ranging from those that arein simple terms, as the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness says99 per cent. genetically human through to those that are 50 per cent. genetically human. The amendments are a response to the debate in the other place, where clarification of the definitions was sought. The Government amendments add a catch-all category to the definition of human admixed embryos in the Bill, providing further clarity of the scope of the term. In addition to the four precise scientific definitions already in the Bill, that will ensure that all new forms of embryos that may be developed that contain both human and animal DNA will, where the animal DNA does not predominate, fall within the regulation.
	The Bill and these provisions are about ensuring that the wishes of this House for this area of research, as set down in 1990, are respected so that regulation can be carried out by the HFEA. The Government amendments improve the Bill, but I sincerely hope that hon. Members will reject all the other amendments and support both the Government and this clause.

David Burrowes: I begin by making a point that I would have liked to raise by intervening on the Minister earlier. It concerns Government amendment No. 34. The problem of definition has been an issue for this House and the other place. Some have sought to define what is human, what is animal and then what is a human admixed embryo. In other provisions, the Government have sought to do that by way of illustrative examples. When dealing with legislation that needs to be applied by regulationsno doubt it will be challenged in due course by lawyers and othersit is important that the House at least leave the Bill in a state of clarity and with clear definitions so that we know what we are dealing with, although that is extremely complex. The Joint Committee, on which I sat, challenged the Government's previous position. It is still an issue of concern. In the other place, Lord Mackay of Clashfern introduced an amendment to provide some clarity of definition about what is human, what is animal and what is a mixture of the two.
	Government amendment No. 34 attempts to provide clarity on the issue of defining what might be subject to regulation. The question, though, for the Minister, which perhaps highlights the problems that we have over definition is, where Government amendment No. 34 would capture that embryo which is created by what is called tetraploid complementation. Those embryos are normally created by adding embryonic stem cells to an animal embryo that has been altered to have double the number of chromosomesthat is, it is a tetraploid. The embryonic stem cells form the foetus while the tetraploid embryo forms the placenta.
	In the Joint Committee, I questioned Professor Lovell-Badge, who replied:
	You may start off with an embryo which is 20 per cent. human and end up with something which is 60 per cent. human or vice versa.
	The reality is that this science is a moveable feastmoving towards human and animal. That causes profound concern, not least in the area of tetraploid complementation, which at present might be subject to Home Office regulations in animal legislation, rather than regulation under such a Bill. I invite the Minister to respond on that point and say whether consideration might be given to dealing with that area of researchnot leaving it to regulation, but ensuring that it is dealt with by primary means.
	Moving to the general positions in the Bill, I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). Concerns have been expressed and we often hear the refrain, All avenues must be kept open. However, when one looks through the Bill, one sees that all avenues are not left open. The Government would wish us to close off various avenues in various arenas. Today, tomorrow and during consideration by the Public Bill Committee, there will be debate on certain avenues that have been cut off, not least those concerning sex selection.
	The House is charged with the duty of building an ethical framework that can properly lead to good science, but my position and that of hon. Friends and hon. Members who have spoken is based on good science but also good ethics. The framework must be built that is sound, lasts for a considerable time and deals with future developments, but is based solidly on ethics and a firm belief in and respect for human life and the dignity of human life, which the House needs to send out and establish clearly in the Bill.
	There is perhaps no greater duty on the House than ensuring that we are clear about that. It cannot be left to chance. It cannot be left to whim. It cannot be left to saying to scientists, Let's give it a chance and see how far it goes. It is important that we ensure that we properly respect those principles of human life, certainly when we are dealing with human admixed embryos, and it is incumbent on us to achieve a Bill that has not only clarity of definition, but clarity of ethics.
	The Government would wish us to be a world leader in this area of stem-cell research. We can all extol the virtues of stem-cell research and regenerative medicine. Indeed, last week in Paris there was a conference to promote responsible regenerative medicine. We could all sign up to that and to cures that come as a result of it. The context of the conference was cord blood stem-cell research. We have already heard from hon. Friends and hon. Members about the developments in relation to cord blood source, which have led and are leading us beyond the normal route of blood immune deficiency to the regeneration of nerves, bone, cartilage, tendon, vessel tissue and beyond. That is an exciting area, but sadly this country is lagging way behind in the league table for collecting cord blood. I understand that we are 13th, and we should do much more in those areas.
	It is important that we consider the context of stem-cell research, although we should not concentrate on just that. We should consider the clinical trials throughout the world. There are 1,987 in relation to adult stem-cell research and 106 on cord blood. There are none on embryonic stem-cell research. That is a significant context, but it should not necessarily be given undue weight when one is considering the context of the Bill.
	The human admixed embryo provisions seek to take us to a new level of the human embryo stem-cell project. We perhaps need to throw some water on the high expectations for embryo stem-cell research. We should take note and be cautious in relation to the fact that embryo stem-cell lines do not work in mature tissues. That is the problem that many scientists are seeking to fix. Embryo stem-cell lines develop tissues. There are fundamental engineering problems. Once embryo stem-cell lines are differentiated, the concern is that what is involved will stop being a stem cell and lose its stemness. It has difficulty turning into a tissue type.
	The concern, though, is that we do not simply deal with the problems of embryo stem-cell research; the issue is human hybrid embryos and whether there are alternatives. In the development of embryo stem-cell research, one has to focus on cloned human embryos. Those are particularly difficult to create. They are very inefficient and defective. There is difficulty that leads to abnormality. When one looks at the research, one sees that there are problems. The problems develop when dealing with the structure of cloned human animal embryos.
	The concern goes beyond risk of infection, immune logical reactions and the tumours that develop. The development of cloned human animal embryos represents taking another leap. That is the focus of the Bill, which will establish that we must move into the area of cytoplasmic hybrids. Taking the scientist's view, one struggles to see how one could get to the point of curing diseases, which is what we all want.
	The Government put it forwardone has to take them at their wordthat cytoplasmic hybrids are essential for groundbreaking research and that they will produce those medical cures for genetic neurodegenerative diseases, but if one goes back a stage to cloned human embryos the reality is that they cannot properly be used for therapies for genetic diseases. The genetic flaw would remain in the tissue, as the genes would come from a person with a disease.
	If one took a leap towards cloned animal human embryos it would be even worse, as they would contain the genetic flaws and the additional genetic and epigenetic flaws because of the way they are created. The human genome would have been reprogrammed with reprogramming factors from the animal egg, and there would be a degree of mismatch between relevant human and animal material. There would also be the risk of the creation of new diseases. As I mentioned earlier, there may be the risk of immune rejection, as mitochondria have proteins that can cause an immune reaction. Some animal mitochondrial proteins would be present in the cells, and they might cause an even stronger immune reaction than human mitochondria.
	Looking back, the concern is that embryonic stem cells have caused dangerous tumours. That led to the withholding of the US Food and Drug Administration licence for clinical trials of embryonic stem cells to go ahead. But it is far too dangerous medically to attempt to use embryo stem-cell lines for therapies. Looking to take that a stage further in terms of human animal cloned embryos, it would be even less safe to use them for therapies.
	In the other place, noble Lords said that cloned human animal embryos would be used for transplant. That certainly is not the case, and I was grateful that Dr. Stephen Minger, speaking to the Associate Parliamentary Health Group on 23 April, made it clear that they could not be used for transplant.
	The Government say that we need cybrids because they will help to inform people about genetic diseases when used with specific cell lines from patients with such diseases. However, we need to consider ethical alternatives. Much has been said about the investigation of motor neurone disease. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) has said that we need to find the avenue for progress, but what is that avenue?
	The Government seek to be a world leader. Since they presented the Bill there has been rapid progress in other areas of alternative stem-cell research, not least in the area of induced pluripotent cells. On Second Reading we heard mention of Professor Wilmut, creator of Dolly the sheep. He had planned to create disease-specific cell lines using so-called cybrids to investigate motor neurone disease, but abandoned that approach very publicly a few months ago, stating that reprogrammed adult cellsinduced pluripotent stem cellsshowed much more potential. That was another avenue for research. He intends to make motor-neurone-disease-specific cell lines using IPS cells.

Lembit �pik: There is room for both, surely. Professor Chris Shaw is not guaranteeing that this is the right way forward, but says that it would be unwise to abandon it. I recognise that there are ethical considerations for many Members, but does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, from a scientific perspective, it makes sense to pursue parallel paths in the knowledge that one of them might provide the solution to motor neurone disease? That would save 1,600 lives a year in the United Kingdom alone.

David Burrowes: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I believe we should support the research that has already taken those steps and clearly has great potential, rather than supporting an area of research that is not only very speculative but ethically challenging. When exploring all avenues, we must respect ethical considerations. Members on both sides of the House have expressed real anxiety about the fact that the clauses dealing with human admixed embryos transcend people's concerns about proper respect for the dignity of human life. It is not a case of all avenues being equal. If we take the scientist's view of where the therapeutic value is and where research is advancing by leaps and bounds, we find ourselves considering induced pluripotent cells. When the Government and scientists make the case for cytoplasmic hybrids, we need only look to that developing field to see that it is the way forward.

Lynne Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman support the measures in the 1990 Act?

David Burrowes: I do not think we should go over old ground and return to debates about whether or not we support embryonic research. If I had been a Member of Parliament at the time I would have voted against it, but we are not rehearsing that debate. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) might want us to resort to such a debate, but the Government want to take us one stage further. They want to take us into areas that other countries do not even consider. They are basing their judgment on research that I believe is flawed and constitutes a false dawn.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend has made it very clear that he doubts the efficacy of admixed embryo research. What is less clear is why he wants to set himself up as a monopolist, excluding lines of inquiry that others think it prudent and sensible to pursue. Why does he think that the admixed embryogiven that there will be licence conditions, and given the 14-day destruction ruleshould have greater legal protection than the human embryo? So far, that point remains blindingly unclear.

David Burrowes: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, as a Conservative I am certainly not in favour of monopolies. I prefer to follow the Conservative principle of payment by results. In this country more than 80 therapeutic treatments have been made possible by adult stem-cell research, and there have been more than 350 clinical trials. We should concentrate on and invest in efficacy and the development of valuable research in this country and overseas, rather than allowing ourselves to be distracted from the results that are being produced.

John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way again?

David Burrowes: No. I want to continue my speech.
	There is concern about important principles such as the dignity of human life. The Government recently tabled an amendment to try to establish a definition of what we are dealing with in the mixing of human and animal entities. There is a lack of clarity and certainty, and for me that is a fundamental ethical concern that takes us beyond the realm of results.

John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Burrowes: No.

John Bercow: Just once more?

David Burrowes: All right.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, whose natural sense of fair play gets the better of him. Does he not agree that if he is to award marks in an exam, it is a good idea for him to be clear about the fact that both competitors are sitting the same exam? Did he not hear the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) say that this is a case of comparing something that has been possible for only five years with something that has been possible for half a century? That is an absurd comparison. My hon. Friend really ought to give the opportunity for admixed embryo research a decent span before rushing into judgment against it.

David Burrowes: I disagree. In fact, I think it unfair to look at adult stem-cell research since the 1950s. In recent years progress has been made by leaps and bounds, not leastas I said earlierin induced pluripotent stem-cell research. Considerable progress has been made even since the publication of the Bill. We should be very cautious about adopting a route that is ethically problematic. Sir Liam Donaldson himself, the chief scientific adviser, made it clear to the Joint Committee that there was a deficit in medical ethics. We ourselves are charged with the duty of ensuring that there is a proper ethical framework, and we should be extremely cautious about taking this route unless its therapeutic value is clear. Why should we not invest properly in areas that are producing the results that we all want?

Andrew Slaughter: The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the comments of the Parkinson's Disease Society, which has said:
	Although there have been some very promising developments in research using adult stem cells in some disease areas, this avenue has not yet proved fruitful for many conditions including Parkinson's.
	While the hon. Gentleman may wish that there were an alternative to the use of admixed embryos in every case, does he not realise that he is closing off the opportunity to cure many serious diseases such as Parkinson's?

David Burrowes: I do not accept that. Indeed, I am keen for us to open up opportunities for stem-cell research, which is why I am such a supporter of cord blood research. An increasing number of tissue types are producing therapeutic value for those suffering from the degenerative diseases that we all want to cure. However, there is no real evidence that embryonic stem-cell research, particularly involving admixed embryos, is likely in the foreseeable future to produce the treatments that the hon. Gentleman wants.
	I think that the Committee should focus primarily on the ethical alternatives to human admixed embryos. Treatments using cord blood stem cells, which were originally used to treat blood diseases, are providing the potential to differentiate into tissue types such as neurons and hepatic cells. Professor Bobrow, a proponent of admixed embryo research, has said:
	We are also not aware of any pressing scientific reasons at the moment for creating such entities, but who knows what tomorrow might bring?
	It is incumbent on the Committee to make a decision today on the real value of therapeutic treatments, and to make another decision tomorrow. I do not believe that we should keep all the options open tomorrow if they transcend concern about the dignity of human life. We certainly should not do that. We should respect the dignity of human life by prohibiting human admixed embryos.
	I urge the House to support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough.

Gordon Marsden: Like manyperhaps mostMembers, I come to the debate having read as much as possible of the various Committee reports but also as a layman, although I should add that I worked with medical and pharmaceutical companies a number of years ago and during that time I was given an invaluable crash course in the twists and turns of how clinical trials are conducted and in the fact that no one in the scientific and medical communities has the tablets from Sinai any more than does anyone else. I also come to the debate without holding an absolutist view on the position of the embryoI freely declare that as a Christian and a member of the Church of Englandand in that I suspect I reflect to an extent the views held within the Church of England; the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) spoke about this on Second Reading, and the Archbishops Council advice given to us reflects it. As Members know, I am a historian, and although this debate is not an occasion for great historical references, it is worth remembering that for a great chunk of the middle ages many Catholic theologians took a very different view of the role of the embryo from that which they do today.
	In the end, however, all such considerations take us only so far. When one strips away the different theologies and medical special pleadings, it is clear that we as Members of this House have to perform a very difficult balancing act. We have to listen closely to the views of all our constituents; my postbag has been weighted in one direction, but its contents have certainly not come from only one direction. We also have to take into account our own personal and family experiences; as has been said, many of us have experiences of friends and family who have suffered the most appalling degenerative diseases, and in my family that has included Alzheimer's.
	We have to use our judgment. It is not our job in this House to canonise scientists, any more than it is our job to canonise cardinals. I have a concernI exempt from this comment those learned Members who have spoken this afternoon with great expertise on this areathat we sometimes think that scientists are immune from the pressures we all face, and that they are therefore different from the rest of us. That is not true: as in other areas, there are no tablets from Sinai in science.
	That being the case, it is very important that this House sends a clear structural view as to where we want to draw the guidelines. I agree with those Members who said on Second Reading that it would have been preferable if this Bill had come before the House on the basis of there being a permanent and standing bioethics committee from which we could have had an ongoing view. We are not in that situation, however. Instead, we are faced with having to make a decision on the basis of what has been put forward thus far.
	I believe that it is important that we give a clearer guideline to the HFEA on the law of the land under which it must operate. It worries me that, for example, the licences that were issued in respect of Liverpool and Newcastle were then subject to press coverage about wonder cures and so on. That is not helpful in the debate on this issue. I listened carefully to the comments of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and the Minister on the difference between admixed and hybrid embryos. I find it difficult to accept that one should be as absolutist as they were about the difference between 99 per cent. and 50 per cent. Coming from the perspective of not having an absolute moral view on embryology but of having some deep-seated concerns, I believe that the further we go along the spectrum, the further such concerns will be raised, and the further the precautionary principle should be applied.

Jo Swinson: rose

Mark Durkan: rose

Gordon Marsden: I am sorry, but I cannot give way, as that would not be fair to other Members who wish to speak.
	We already know that, sadly, clinical hybrid animal trials conducted at cell stage do not always produce the results in humans that the trials showthey do not even produce these results in different groups of human beings. Therefore, it is unreasonable to hold the view that hybrid research will automatically open up matters in the way that has been suggested. The points made about the progress there has been with adult stem cells need to be given much greater prominence. An important point was also made about how treatments in this entire area have been revolutionised in the past 10 years. That makes it all the more important that we send out a message to the HFEA. Concerns have been expressed about its membership and its perspective, and they should be looked at on another occasion.
	At the heart of this issue is the need to make a very difficult choice. I do not believe that we can make it for ever and a day, which is why I would like there to be a bioethics committee.  [Interruption.] Some may groan. I would like this House to have the ability to come back on a future occasion and discuss these matters again. If we are not to have that, I believereluctantly, as I strongly understand the views of those groups who believe that it would be fruitful to go further down this routethat we should opt for the precautionary principle at this stage. That is why I shall support the amendment.

Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) said he did not want to canonise. I want neither to canonise nor to demonise. I fully respect the views of those fellow Christians who believe there is nothing morally wrong in moving down the line of having mixed embryos and so on, but I am afraid that I take a different linean absolutist line. I think there are cases where one has to face up to the fundamental question of whether the ends justify the means. While we have all received letters, such as that read out by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), from people suffering from grievous diseases and we all wish to see cures, we must also accept the mortality of man. We have to accept that there are certain things that man should not seek to do. The mixture of embryosthe creation of something that is part animal and part humanis a line beyond which I am not prepared to go. Therefore, I do not support the modest amendments proposed by my Front-Bench colleagues, and I do support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I hope very much that the House will agree to it, although I fear it will not. I shall therefore console myself with the immortal words of Willie Whitelaw: that things are never either as good or as bad as they seem. The step we are contemplating taking is a very serious one. Great as is my respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) and others, I believe that the cardinals have it, and it is in accordance with that that I shall vote tonight.

Fiona Mactaggart: I will not rehearse the scientific arguments; I am not a scientist. I have heard some powerful arguments from people who are, however, and it seems to me that this area of research holds out serious hopes of tackling diseases, if not in the short term then in the longer term.
	I want to speak tonight because I am infertile and I have multiple sclerosis. I received treatment for my infertility, but it was not possible to cure me. However, the two embryos that were left over were able to be used for research. Following the legislation in 2001, those sorts of embryos have been able to be used for research into things other than fertilitythe only thing for which they could originally be usedfor example, research into diseases such as my multiple sclerosis.
	We are talking about making more embryos available for research through the use of hybrids. I know through my experience just how painful hyperstimulation of one's ovaries is, but we have not heard about that issue in this debate. Why are we examining the creation of hybrids? We are doing so because there are insufficient embryos for research, and I shall tell hon. Members one of the reasons why that is. Had there been any chance of my having a child as a result of the embryos that I made, I would have used them for that purpose, and I believe that the same is true for any woman who has been through that kind of treatment.
	Asking women to go through the process of hyperstimulation of their ovaries to make eggs for other people's research is frankly a step too far, yet we know that it is possible, through embryonic research, to create a model of some of these terrible diseases in a dish. That is what this Bill offers; it does not offer hybrid, would-be people; it offers the possibility of creating cell lines that contain these terrible, debilitating diseases. In the case of motor neurone disease, the disease leads to certain death. As far as I can tell from looking at the King's college work, there is no real option of creating neurons from adult stem cells, so we must grasp this chance.
	In 1975, people said no to recombinant DNA technology because, It is playing God. You are mixing up different genes. That is not the proper thing to do. The scientific community said that it would say yes, and in the 33 years since, treatments for haemophilia and diabetes, as well as many biopharmaceutical drugs, have been developed. That has taken 33 years, but it has made a real difference on these chronic illnesses. We have an opportunity tonight to make a real difference, perhaps not in the short term, but in the future, on chronic diseases, particularly on these devastating neurological diseases. It would be a great pity if the House did not grasp that opportunity.

Edward Leigh: It is a pleasure briefly to sum up an excellent and serious debate, in which, for once, we have been able to lay aside party politics. I thank everybody who has taken part, although not everybody has supported my point of view. I particularly thank the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who talked at the beginning of this debate about the heart of this issue: the ethics. He was followed briefly by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden). We all share great sympathy for the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), but hundreds of clinical trials have taken place and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) mentioned, they were all on adult stem cells; not one was on embryo stem cells. The proposal is a step too far. We believe that it crosses an ethical line in mixing animal and human embryos. We believe the evidence. As Lord Winston has said, there is no evidence to suggest that a magic cure is available round the corner, which is why we shall press this amendment to a vote.

It being three hours after the commen cement of proceedings on  clause 4 , The Chairman  put  forthwith  the Question already proposed from the Chair , pursuant to Order [12 May]
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 176, Noes 336.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being more than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill, The Chairman  put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [12 May].
	 Amendment made: No. 33, in page 4, line 14, at end insert
	'(4A) A licence cannot authorise keeping or using a human admixed embryo in any circumstances in which regulations prohibit its keeping or use.'. [Mr. David.]
	 Amendment proposed: No. 10, in page 4, line 14, at end insert
	'(4A) A licence cannot authorise the creation of an embryo using
	(a) human gametes and animal gametes, or
	(b) one human pronucleus and one animal pronucleus.'. [Mark Simmonds.]
	 Question put , That the amendment be made:
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 223, Noes 286.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendment proposed: No. 44, in page 4, leave out lines 25 to 27. [Mr. Drew.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 181, Noes 314.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendments made: No. 34, page 4, leave out line 30 and insert
	'(e) any embryo not falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) which contains both nuclear or mitochondrial DNA of a human and nuclear or mitochondrial DNA of an animal (animal DNA) but in which the animal DNA is not predominant.'.
	No. 35, page 5, line 6, leave out '(d)' and insert '(e)'. [Mr. David.]
	 Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11
	  
	Activities that may be licensed

Evan Harris: I beg to move amendment No. 31, page 8, line 21, leave out subsection (1) and insert
	'(1) Section 11 of the 1990 Act (licences for treatment, storage and research) is amended as follows
	(a) in the title, for and research substitute , research and therapy.
	(b) in subsection (1)(b), for and embryos substitute , embryos or human admixed embryos; and
	(c) after subsection (1)(c) add
	(d) licences under paragraph 3B of that Schedule authorising activities for the purposes of therapy.'.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 14, in schedule 2, page 54, line 22, at end insert
	 'Licences for therapy
	1ZA (1) A licence under this paragraph may authorise any of the following
	(a) bringing about the creation of embryos in vitro, and
	(b) keeping or using embryos, for the purposes of therapy specified in the licence
	(2) No licence under this paragraph is to be granted unless the Authority is satisfied that any proposed use of embryos is necessary for the purposes of the therapy.
	(3) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a licence under this paragraph may be granted subject to such conditions as may be specified in the licence.
	(4) A licence under this paragraph may authorise the performance of any of the activities referred to in sub-paragraph (1), in such manner as may be so specified.
	(5) A licence under this paragraph may be granted for a period not exceeding three years as may be specified in the licence.
	(6) This paragraph has effect subject to paragraph 1ZB.
	 Purposes for which activities may be licensed under paragraph 1ZA
	1ZB (1) A licence under paragraph 1ZA cannot authorise any activity unless the activity appears to the Authority
	(a) to be necessary or desirable for any of the purposes specified in sub-paragraph (2) (the principal purposes),
	(b) to be necessary or desirable for the purpose of providing knowledge that, in the view of the Authority, may be capable of being applied for the purposes specified in sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b), or
	(c) to be necessary or desirable for such other purposes as may be specified in regulations.
	(2) The principal purposes are
	(a) treatment of serious disease, or
	(b) treatment of a serious medical condition.'.
	No. 24, page 55, line 14, leave out from 'a' to 'that' in line 15 and insert
	'harmful gene, combination of genes, chromosome or mitochondrion'.
	No. 25, page 55, line 18, leave out from 'any' to 'establishing' in line 19 and insert
	'harmful gene, combination of genes, chromosome or mitochondrion'.
	No. 26, page 55, line 19, leave out second 'abnormality' and insert 'genotype'.
	No. 27, page 55, line 20, leave out from 'other' to end of line 21 and insert
	'harmful gene, combination of genes, chromosome or mitochondrion'.
	No. 15, page 55, leave out lines 24 to 28 and insert
	'(i) a gender-related physical or mental disability which is life-threatening or severely impairs their quality of life,
	(ii) a gender-related serious illness which is life-threatening or severely impairs their quality of life, or
	(iii) any other gender-related serious medical condition which is life-threatening or severely impairs their quality of life
	No. 4, page 55, leave out lines 30 to 37.
	No. 17, page 55, line 33, leave out 'serious'.
	No. 16, page 55, line 33, after 'medical condition', add
	'which is life-threatening or severely impairs their quality of life'.
	No. 18, page 55, line 35, after 'other', insert 'regenerative'.
	No. 28, page 55, line 45, leave out 'abnormality' and insert 'harmful genotype'.
	No. 29, page 56, line 1, leave out 'abnormality' and insert
	'harmful gene, combination of genes, chromosomes or mitochondrion'.
	No. 30, page 56, line 3, leave out 'abnormality' and insert 'harmful genotype'.
	No. 5, page 56, line 11, leave out subsection (4) and insert
	'(4) In a case where a person (the sibling) who is the child of the persons whose gametes are used to bring about the creation of the embryo (or of either of those persons) suffers from any medical condition which could be treated by umbilical cord blood stem cells, bone marrow or other tissue of any resulting child, a licence under paragraph 1 cannot authorise embryo testing for the purposes of establishing whether the tissue of any resulting child would be compatible with that of the sibling or for embryo testing for any purposes for the subsequent medical treatment of that sibling's medical condition.'.
	No. 19, page 56, leave out lines 34 to 40.
	No. 6, page 56, line 35, at end insert
	', with the exception of sub-paragraph (4) of that paragraph.'.
	No. 20, page 57, leave out lines 2 to 4.
	No. 32, page 59, line 6, at end add
	 'Licences for therapy
	3B (1) A licence under this paragraph may authorise any of the following
	(a) bringing about the creation of embryos in vitro, and
	(b) keeping or using embryos,
	for the purposes of therapy specified in the licence.
	(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a licence under this paragraph may be granted subject to such conditions as may be specified in the licence.
	(3) A licence under this paragraph may authorise the performance of any of the activities referred to in sub-paragraph (1) in such a manner as may be so specified.
	(4) A licence under this paragraph may be granted for such period not exceeding three years as may be specified in the licence.
	(5) This paragraph has effect subject to paragraph 3C.
	 Purposes for which activities may be licensed under paragraph 3B
	3C (1) A licence under paragraph 3B cannot authorise any activity unless the activity appears to the Authority
	(a) to be necessary or desirable for any of the purposes of developing or deriving treatments for serious disease or other serious medical conditions, or
	(b) to be necessary or desirable for such other purposes as may be specified in regulations.'.

David Burrowes: On a point of order, Mr. Hood. I am concerned as to whether amendment No. 31 is within the remit of the Bill, given Lord Darzi's letter of 31 January in response to a similar amendment in the other place. He made it clear that regulatory oversight by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority finishes once a stem-cell line is derived and deposited in the UK stem-cell bank. Any stem-cell lines intended for human use will need to comply with the requirements of the Human Tissue Authority and are, therefore, subject to its regulations and to the Human Tissue Act 2004. As that is not the subject of the Bill and as other amendments, not least mine dealing with the collection of umbilical cord blood, were within the remit of the Human Tissue Act and the Human Tissue Authority, I ask the judgment of the Chair as to whether the amendment is in any way relevant, given that it is not within the remit of the Bill.

Jimmy Hood: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's point of order, as the amendment would not have been on the amendment paper had it not been in order. It was selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Evan Harris: Amendment No. 31 is important, but I take this opportunity to speak to the other group of amendments in my name, and to deal with the issue of saviour siblings, which is clearly one that will dominate the debate.
	Embryo selection can be negative or positive. Negative embryo selection, which has been lawful under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, means that if a family suffers from an inheritable disease, they are ableeven if otherwise fertileto have in vitro fertilisation. If it is successful, embryos can be gathered and tested at an early stage, while outside the woman, by the removal of one cell. That has not been found to damage the embryo and the testing of the cell enables clinicians to identify whether each embryo is affected by the condition. If an embryo is affected, the couple undergoing treatment can avoid selecting that embryo for implantation and use one of the unaffected embryos.
	Since 1990, the HFEA has licensed such negative selection on a number of occasions and families have benefited by avoiding inheritable disease, particularly when they already have a child significantly affected by the disease. That is a reasonable thing to do and I absolutely reject the suggestion that helping a family to avoid having a child with a serious disease is in any way discriminatory against the disabled. There is a complete difference between seeking to alleviate or avoid suffering by such techniques and discriminating against disabled or sick human beings after they are born. Indeed, many of the doctors who work so hard to provide pre-implantation genetic diagnosis also work hard both to provide in utero surgery to avoid or ameliorate congenital defects and to look after children born with serious diseases. Although I realise that views on the issue run strongly, I hope that the allegation of discrimination is not levelled against clinicians, parents and those of us who think that PGD is legitimate to help people to avoid having a child with a forecast serious genetic disorder. Such an allegation borders on the offensive.
	My second point is that when taking a cell to check whether a child is affected by a disease it is also possible to carry out other tests on the cellfor example, tissue typing. I shall briefly describe two cases. The first involves the Hashmi family whose child was very sick with thallassemia and needed a transplant, but none was available from the bone marrow or cord banks, as is often the case for families with certain genotypesparticularly, but not exclusively, those from ethnic minorities. The Hashmis needed to check whether their next child would have the same disease, and whether they could select an embryo who did not have it. They also wanted to see whether they could get a tissue match. The HFEA said, after serious consideration, that that was a legitimate thing to do, and the courts upheld that decision as lawful under the 1990 Act. I understand that the Hashmis were unfortunately not successful in conceiving.
	The next case that came along was that of the Whitakers, a family from Oxfordshire. They had a child who was seriously ill with Diamond Blackfan anaemia, who was kept alive by weekly transfusions and nightly treatments of an infusion of a drug. It was not an inherited disease but a sporadic mutation, so when they had another childthey wanted to have another child anywaythey did not need to test the embryo for the genetic disease, but they did wish to use a tissue-typing technique. They were fertile but they wanted to have IVF so that they could select an embryo that was a tissue match, in order that a wanted, loved child could provide a cord blood transplant for the afflicted older sibling.
	The family were denied that opportunity by the HFEA, which disagreed with its own ethics committee. It later changed its mind, but in the interim the Whitakers went to Chicago for the treatment. It was successful, and they had another child, who was healthy. That child's cord blood was used in a transplant for the older sibling. The procedure was successful, and the sibling was cured. As a result of the intervention, instead of neither of the two children being alive and healthy, they were both alive and healthy. That makes the case more eloquently than any speech or policy document could.
	What are the problems? Well, I do not think that there are any. I do not accept the allegation that there will be a burden on the saviour sibling. There is no evidence of that. There is evidence that if the intervention does not take place the sibling will suffer bereavement, because the young child will be born into a family who have a seriously diseased child who may die. It would be a benefit if that could be avoided. As I said on Second Reading, even if we could forecast circumstances in which there would be a burden, those potential circumstances have to be balanced against the certainty of harm if the family is not allowed to have a second child in the way that I have described.
	We do not know whether the removal of a cell creates long-term harm to the embryo; it is fair to say that the technology is relatively new. However we do know that so farthousands of children have been born following pre-implantation genetic diagnosisthere does not appear to be any harm, although it is important to keep observing. We do know that the birth of many sick children has been avoided, and healthy ones have been born instead, and that a handful of saviour siblings have been permitted. The HFEA has made it clear that it will not allow the procedure if there is an alternative that does not involve the destruction of embryos, so if there is a bone marrow match or a cord blood match, it is likely that that will be pursued first, because such a transplant is clearly less onerous for the parents than IVF, which is burdensome, and pregnancy.

Ian Gibson: Is it true, though, that many ailments and afflictions are multi-factorial, and that in those cases one could not easily find a single-gene disorder by carrying out PGD? In many cases, 50 or 60 genes are involved. What is the hon. Gentleman's view about those situations and the children with those afflictions?

Evan Harris: It is most likely that the procedure will be possible only in a handful of cases, so we are not talking about widespread tissue typing of a lot of embryos. Of course, many parents will choose not to have IVF and will instead take their chances, which are one in four.
	Clear evidence has been presented to me that a tissue-matched transplant from a relative is more likely to be successfulat least in the case of Diamond Blackfan anaemia, from which the Whitaker child sufferedthan a tissue-matched transplant from someone who is unrelated. We all support the idea of a bone marrow bank and umbilical cord blood banks, but they will never be a complete replacement. However, if those banks expand, there will be less need for procedures of the kind that we are discussing. I do not think that we need to have the discussion that I fear we will have about the merits of umbilical cord blood banking and bone marrow banking, such as that provided by the estimable Anthony Nolan Trust. The measure is self-limiting; if cord blood and bone marrow transplants work, the procedure will not be done. The measure relates to the few circumstances in which the procedure will still be required.
	As far as my party is concerned, there is to be a free vote on the issue. I know that some of my hon. Friends do not share my view, but I think that the procedure should take place. We are not talking about eugenics. Eugenics is a state-sponsored scheme of building in genetic advantages, or excluding certain genetic conditions. The procedure is not state-sponsored at all. It is for doctors and patients to agree to the procedure together, under informed consent, and then apply to the regulator for permission. It is not eugenics, and it is offensive to suggest that it is.
	I should like to move on to the other significant amendments in the group. First, I want to talk about the amendments in my name concerning the use of the term abnormality in the Bill. That wording causes a problem. It allows genetic testing for a genetic abnormality. There are some characteristics that, together, might cause serious diseases or life-threatening diseaseor whatever the threshold happens to bebut that cannot properly be called abnormalities. I have had a briefing from leading geneticists, including Marcus Pembury, that says that if the Government do not make this minor amendment, they may find themselves fighting a High Court case in which opponents of PGD will say, This particular combination of normal genes, which causes a serious disease in this individual, is not an abnormality, so how can you say that you're testing for an abnormality, according to the terms of the Bill, when the problem is caused simply by a combination of normal components?
	The best comparison is with rhesus disease. Carrying certain rhesus factorspositive or negativecan cause serious disease in a second child, but the rhesus factor is not an abnormality; it just so happens that in that case, it is bad news for a child. I therefore urge the Government to consider the alternative form of words that I have suggested, which includes reference to a harmful gene or combination of genes, because that is what we are talking about. In the other House, it was suggested that the phrase genetic characteristic be usedthat is, a genetic characteristic that caused serious disease, not a genetic characteristic that was being screened for; we have to be clear about that. Either of those wordings would solve the problem, and I should be interested to know whether the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), can be certain that her form of words will not be challenged.
	Finally, I turn to amendment No. 31. It is linked with amendment No. 32, which would amend schedule 2. Amendment No. 32 is the key one; it is very important, but I do not have time to give it its due. It would insert a new provision that would enable the HFEA to give a licence for therapy as well as for research. The problem with the current Bill is that if, one day, the research works, and it is possible to derive from embryos stem cells that could be used to treat, say, diabetics by providing new, insulin-producing cells, or Parkinson's disease, it is not clear whether it would be possible to create embryos and use or store them for the purpose of therapy. Clearly, clinical trials are covered by the term research, so it will be possible to create, store and use an embryo to provide stem cells for use in clinical trials. One cannot keep doing clinical trials once a treatment is known to work; it is unethical to randomise someone to placebo and someone else to a treatment that is known to be effective. At that point, one has to stop trialling, and instead deliver treatment. At that point, it is not clear whether the original embryo, from which the new stem cells are derived, will be covered, under the HFEA, by a licence, because one can get a licence only for treating infertility or for research.
	The Government are right to say that the stem-cell therapies will be controlled by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and, before that, by the Human Tissue Authority. That is not in doubt, and I am sure that the joint statement from those bodies and the HFEA will lead to a seamless transfer. The problem is that if, once research trials work, a company called, say, Stem Cells R Us comes along and says, We can produce embryonic stem cells for treatment and sell them to the NHS as therapy, it will not get a licence under the Bill, because it cannot show what the research ends are. It is not good enough for the Government to say that there will always be quality assurance testing on any stem cells derived and that that counts as research. Quality assurance is not research. Research must pass muster on clinical research ethics, and a clear programme of research with inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria is therefore required.
	The Government gave two different answers when the issue was raised in the LordsI can send the Minister the exact quotes. That makes their position difficultif their position is that there is no problembecause if there were a challenge in court, it would be found that Ministers in the Lords said diametrically opposed things in Committee and on Report. In Committee, the Minister said that such a provision would be a step too far, because it would raise a series of issues about, for example, how many embryos per stem cell line are needed for therapy. On Report, the Government changed their mind, when the Minister said that such a provision would be unnecessary, because the practice is already permitted under the 1990 Act. The Government stuck to that line in the letter that was referred to in the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) and on Third Reading.
	That will not do. It is necessary to clarify the situation, which would not be a step too far. Indeed, Baroness Warnock expressed concern in Committee that despite everything we went through on cloning regulations, which related to conducting stem-cell research and providing therapies, the Government say that they would permit research but would not permit the fruits of that researchthe therapies themselvesto be used.
	Lord Patel and I worked on the amendment that has since been tabled by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), but my amendment No. 32 is better than that, which is why I have re-submitted itthe two amendments do the same thing. I do not intend to divide the Committee, but whatever the Minister says in reply, will she meet me, scientists and stem-cell research funders, who are concerned, along with her officials to explain precisely whyI fear that she will not have time todaymy amendment is unnecessary?

Dawn Primarolo: The Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Council and a large number of scientists support the Government's interpretation of the 1990 Act. While I am always happy to exchange discussion points with the hon. Gentleman over a cup of tea, I regret that I will not give him such a commitment this evening.

Evan Harris: I am astonished. The views of the MRC do not matter, because this is a legal question. I have received legal advice stating that the Government's position will not do and that it is challengeable, and potential investors in stem-cell research have said the same thing. I think that the Minister accepts that the first answer given by the Minister in the other place was incorrect, and she is now sticking by the answer given at a later stage.

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman is persistent.  [ Interruption. ] His colleagues have confirmed that, although they do not agree with him. If he wants to draw things to my attention, then he can send them to me. However, the advice that I have received and the consultation that has been undertaken indicate that the interpretation that the Government put on allowing research to be conducted into therapies, which is the purpose of the Bill, is clear, as explained in the other place.

Evan Harris: I am very worried now, because that is not the question. The question relates not to research but to after research has finished. Let us say that in five to 10 years' time the research has worked and that the researchers want to create embryos to derive the therapies without the research stage. How would they do that, when only a research licence is available for that purpose? That is the problem. The Minister might say, Well, we will have another Bill in five to 10 years' time. However, I do not think that she will want to go through this again. Furthermore, the history of legislation on the issue indicates that it does not come up very often.
	I urge the Minister to recognise that she has not addressed my question. If someone wanted to produce embryos for therapy after trials had been conducted either elsewhere in the world or in this country, how would they apply, because they would not have a research project? The Minister should take this issue more seriously.
	I know that many hon. Members want to speak. In expressing disappointment in the Government's response

Dawn Primarolo: It is utterly outrageous for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that I am not taking the Bill seriously, simply because I am not prepared to undertake to meet him. I hope that he will withdraw that remark.

Evan Harris: The record will show that I said that the Minister is not taking this issue seriously; so she is being unreasonable in suggesting that I have suggested that she is not taking the Bill seriously.
	I have received legal advice that suggests that there is a problem, but the Minister has been unable to address it. The Government gave contradictory opinions in the House of Lords, but she will not even meet people who disagree with her.  [ Interruption. ] I think that she is saying from a sedentary position that she would be happy to meet me.

Dawn Primarolo: indicated dissent.

Evan Harris: Apparently not, which I find amazing. The Minister will find that the issue comes back on Report, when she will be seen to be unreasonable on that issue.
	I have set out why I believe it right to permit saviour siblings and why the drawbacks that have been ascribed to that approach do not apply. For a handful of families, allowing tissue typing as a form of PGD will give them the opportunity to help one child, while at the same time producing another healthy child who is also wanted.

George Howarth: Anybody listening to the debate on saviour siblings, both in Committee today and in the wider mediaI exempt the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) from this, but there are other speeches still to comemight be forgiven for falling under the misapprehension that the moral argument lies entirely in one direction and that the legislation has been drafted by a latter-day Mary Shelley who wants to allow scientists to create monsters. I am not exaggerating in making that remarkwhen we debated the amendments to clause 4, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) prayed in aid Mary Shelley.
	When one hears comparisons between this Bill and, for example, the Third Reich, it is easy to forget that we are discussing treatments that, if successful, could save lives and prevent needless suffering. We should make decisions based on the best available evidence and put highly charged language to one side. As with most contentious issues, no one side has a monopoly on the moral argument, and it is important that we avoid such pretensions and focus on real people's lives and the effects on real people's lives, as supported by evidence.
	I respect the views of those who have reservations about the Bill, but the three main arguments against saviour siblings are flawed. I will discuss those arguments and touch on some of the moral arguments that support our moving in that direction. The first argument that is often put is that saviour siblings would be treated as commodities. In other words, parents who choose to have a further child in the knowledge that that might save the life of its sibling are somehow driven by unacceptable motives. At the heart of that argument lies the alarming notion that the state has the right to question the motives of prospective parents. It does not take a great deal of thought to realise the odd directions in which that could take us. I strongly believe that it is up to parents to decide their own justifications for having children. In practice, to be perfectly honest, it is unclear how it would be possible accurately to judge intentions in every specific case. I do not want to stray too far from the point, Mr. Hood, but it does not take a great deal of imagination to envisage a number of different cases where any of us would disapprove of the circumstances in which a child was conceived. However, would we have the right to condemn their birth? That example has a direct parallel with the argument that I have mentioned.
	The second argument expressed by opponents of saviour siblings suggests that saviour siblings would be the first step on a slippery slope to designer babies. Frankly, that argument could be put only in a completely different context, because the rules in the Bill explicitly prevent such a development. If we went through life rejecting Bills on the basis of what subsequent legislation might propose, we would probably never pass any laws whatever.
	The third argument suggests that saviour siblings may be physically and/or psychologically harmed. It is flawed for several reasons. First, the Bill includes an amendment that limits other tissue, so it does not include whole organs and will have the effect of preventing an embryo from being tested if the intention is to remove an organ from a child. Although it is true that, according to all reports, making a bone marrow donation is not a pleasant experience, there is little, if any, evidence that donors suffer any lasting adverse effects. In fact, the contrary is true: as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon suggested, many people who can offer the gift of life report an overwhelming psychological benefit.
	Arguments against saviour siblings are weak. What are the arguments in favour of them? More importantly, what principles should guide us on the issue?

Gary Streeter: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is making a thoughtful speech.
	Does he not give any weight to the possible psychological harm to a second childa saviour siblingwho had given, say, bone marrow on a number of occasions and came to discover, be told or believe that he had been created, selected or put together primarily for a particular purpose? Would such a child not wonder about what kind of child he would have been had that selection not taken place, and would that not add to the teenage angst and turbulence that we see in too many youngsters already?

George Howarth: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, which is important. However, I do not know where the balance of the evidence takes us. I do not wish to be in any way disagreeable, but 30 or 40 years ago it could have been argued that somebody born out of wedlock would be disadvantaged for the rest of their lives. Some people might have made a value judgment, but all I can say is that I know a lot of people who were born to unmarried parents and do not seem to have suffered any psychological disadvantage at all. I return to my previous point: the one thing that we do know is that most people who have benefited a sibling through this sort of procedure report that it makes them feel good about themselves and creates a greater bond.
	The issue is complicated and it is difficult to say that in every case the use of saviour siblings would be damaging or that in every case it would be wonderful; there will be a wide spectrum of reactions to the experience. However, I do not think that the argument put by the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) seriously militates against their use.

Stephen Pound: I agree that my right hon. Friend is making a sober and considered case. However, I ask him to consider the circumstances of a saviour sibling whose creation fails to resolve the problem for which he or she was created. What psychological damage would that do the child, and how would the parents view that childcreated to save, yet unable to do so?

George Howarth: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I said that there would be a wide spectrum of circumstances and that cases would be different. One could equally argue that a child who had an elder sibling with a congenital disease that would lead to certain death, and who was not used for such a treatment, would suffer a bereavement that would result in an even greater psychological disadvantage. There is no easy answer to any of these problems and I do not pretend to have all the answers. However, I return to my previous point: I can foresee circumstances in which a young person would feel good about having played a part in the survival of an elder sibling.

Mark Todd: My right hon. Friend referred to the positive feelings cited by siblings who have donated. Surely those siblings had given consent to the processin other words, they were knowingly engaged in assisting another sibling. In the instance that we are discussing, no such consent would be obtained. The decision would be made by the parents.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend is correct. However, parents make all sorts of decisions about their babies and children without there being any possible consultation. I cannot see how somebody could be consulted about what could happen in their infancy before they were even born. My hon. Friend's point is not strong.

John Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Tom Levitt: rose

George Howarth: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt). After that, I really should make progress.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The fact that the savour sibling would not be in a position to give his or her consent at the time for something that proved to be thoroughly beneficial does not mean that he or she could not feel a great sense of retrospective satisfaction at having done something very good. The two concepts are by no means mutually exclusive.

George Howarth: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who answered my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) more eloquently than I did.

Tom Levitt: rose

George Howarth: Finally, I give way to my hon. Friend.

Tom Levitt: I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend has said. The answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) is that when Siamese, conjoined twins have to be separated clinically and the chances are that one will die, I do not recall that the twin least likely to survive is consulted. The situation is difficult and parents have to make the decision. The situation is no different from that involving savour siblings.

George Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps I should just take interventions; the more I take, the stronger my argument becomes.
	It is important to remember that, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon pointed out, the only real difference between conventional IVF treatment and the process of creating a saviour sibling is in the reduction of chance at the point when eggs are selected for implantation. In my view, claiming that that is a manipulation of DNA cells or a creation of designer babies is a misrepresentation of the facts. The reality is that it simply enables an informed selection of embryos so that there is a greater likelihood of a healthy baby who also has the potential to save their sibling's life. If, as I do, we accept that the principle of IVF is a good thing and if we have the technology to make this important decision in a more informedway, we should use that technology, as long as all therapeutic alternatives have been exhausted.
	It is a question of using the best available knowledge to maximise the chances of saving lives and reducing suffering. As was noted in the previous debate, there are other sources of therapeutic cellsbone marrow transplants and cord blood from non-related donors provide such possibilities. However, only 20 to 35 per cent. of patients have a matching sibling by chance and the odds of obtaining matching stem cells from an unrelated donor vary according to the ethnic origin of the patient. As matching is significantly improved when the donor and recipient have the same ethnic and racial background, this Bill will have even greater benefits for people from minority ethnic groups struggling to find a suitable donor. Indeed, one of the cases that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon referred to made that point equally well.
	When we think about the principles involved, it is all too easy to forget that we are dealing with uncertainties. The best available scientific evidence can only predict the most likely future therapies. Indeed, the history of medicine shows, repeatedly, that life-transforming treatments in one area often arise from work with a very different original rationale. The obvious example is that of Alexander Fleming's discovery of penicillina chance discovery from an already discarded contaminated Petri dish. The drug sildenafil was originally used to treat angina before a notable side effect was deemed to have a significant therapeutic use in its own right. For those in the Committee who are not immediately familiar with this drug, its more popular brand name is Viagra.

Stephen Pound: It'll never stand up in court.

Jimmy Hood: Order.

George Howarth: Mr. Hood, I shall refrain from responding to my hon. Friend's sedentary interventions.
	We should ensure that we provide sufficient flexibility in the Bill to allow new therapies to be developed that at the moment are nothing more than theoretical possibilities. For example, the only conditions that can currently be treated by saviour siblings are those that can be cured through bone marrow or umbilical cord blood cells. In future, scientific techniques may have advanced so that other cells, perhaps from the umbilical cord itself, may be of use. It is, therefore, important to include such possibilities to maximise the potential to develop new cures and therapies.
	Finally, there is a powerful moral argument in support of the measures in the Bill. Subject to the safeguards it contains, we should allow medicine to intervene to save lives and to reduce suffering wherever possible.

David Burrowes: Before moving on to saviour siblings, I would like to deal with the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), including amendments Nos. 24 to 28, which would significantly widen the embryo testing provisions from a situation where there is a risk of a gene chromosome of mitochondrian abnormality to cases where there is a risk from a harmful genotype or any other harmful gene. One has to raise the question of what a harmful gene or chromosome is. How is harmful defined? To whom is it harmfula society that cannot tolerate disease? My concern about the amendments, and the Bill itself, is the value we put on life, and whether we seek to focus on the quality of life and make the judgment that some lives are more valued than others. I am particularly concerned about that lack of definition in the amendments.

Evan Harris: I would like to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to proposed new paragraph 1ZA(2) in schedule 2(2), which states that not only does there have to be an abnormality or a harmful combination of genes, but also
	a significant risk that a person with the abnormality will have or develop a serious physical or mental disability, a serious illness or any other serious medical condition.
	Whatever that threshold isthe hon. Gentleman may think that it should be life-threatening, if anythingthose conditions still have to be satisfied. There is no way one could widen the number of people to whom the provisions apply. It is just the way we define what it is that creates the risk that is at stake in the amendments.

David Burrowes: I am grateful for that intervention because it is the issue of definition that concerns me. Amendment No. 25 sets out an extension to harmful genotypes. I have looked up the meaning of genotype, and it includes a range of definitions of the genetic make-up of an individual. Genotype can also be defined as the physical or psychological genetic potential of a person when bornfor example, someone born with a genetic predisposition to depression. However, whether that person develops depression depends on their upbringing and environment. I looked further at the definition of genotype, and it is defined as one's genetic potential when born, physically and psychologically. Someone may be born with the physical genotype to play football for his or her country. One would have to judge whether it would be a harmful genotype that led someone to play football for England, Scotland or Wales. One certainly would not want to include a definition of genotype in relation to this area of the law.
	I wish to press amendment No. 4 to a Division because it raises important issues of principle that I do not believe are met by the safeguards, which we shall debate later. The safeguards are helpful to the debate, and they have been discussed in detail in the other place. Nevertheless, it is important for this House to decide for the first time on the principle of saviour siblings. Indeed, that is one of the reasons we are discussing the matter in a Committee of the whole House. It is an important issue of principle.
	I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), for whom I have great respect. It is certainly important that we do not simply consider the matter in some vacuum of principle away from the application of the real issues of anguish that have been mentionedthe cases we have heard that, for the avoidance of repetition, I will not go over in detail. The whole House shares considerable concern for those parents caring for a seriously ill child, and understands their desperate search for a cure. After they have been through all avenues to seek a matchfrom bone marrow or any available cord bloodand are told of an opportunity to create a sibling to provide a match, one can understand why they would want to consider that option. It is important that we take account of those concerns and recognise that they are rare concerns. I heard clearly the Government's response on Second Reading that the measure is one of last resort, but it is important that the House deals carefully with the ethical principles involved.

Brian Iddon: Would the hon. Gentleman agree with many other Members that it is better to regulate saviour sibling technology tightly in this country instead of forcing people such as the Whitakers to travel long distances at a traumatic period in their lives? They went to Chicago, as we have already been told.

David Burrowes: It is important for Parliament to have legislation that deals with the citizens of this country and to ensure that it is based on sound ethical principles. We need to do that and be vigorous, rather than simply devolving and delegating matters to a regulatory authority. Indeed, good practice might suggest that we devolve the matter to a court. I want to go through those issues and the safeguards in detail shortly.
	First of all, however, it is important to consider the issue of principle. The important principle that we need to vote on today is whether it is legitimate and right deliberately to create a baby who has the same tissue type as a sick sibling with the intention of harvesting the cord blood, bone marrow or other tissue. Do we wish to do that, having taken into account the concerns of parents who are desperate for a match for an existing child? We need to ensure that we take account of those concerns. We have a duty as a caring society to offer all the services we can through modern medicine, and to ensure that there is a cure available, or an alleviation of those parents' concerns. I want to deal with those matters, too.
	It is important that we do not make decisions in a moral vacuumI do not believe that any hon. Member wants to do that. While taking account of parents' concerns, we must keep hold of the important principle that a child should not be deliberately used or created for the benefit of another, no matter how pressing the need.

Desmond Turner: The hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about moral principle. If amendment No. 4 is passed, a fewfortunately not manychildren will die because they cannot be treated. There is a moral imperative, if therapeutic measures existthey do in the case we are considering, through scientific advances, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and the tissue typing of embryosto use them to save life. What is his reaction to that?

David Burrowes: My reaction to that moral imperative, which has existed for several years, is to challenge the Government about the extent to which they are properly focused on and investing in umbilical cord blood to ensure that the necessary resources are available. We can then join Peter Braude of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, who chaired the committee on cord blood. When asked about saviour siblings, he said that the need for donor siblings would be temporary and that, in future, he hoped that stem-cell supply, especially the use of cord blood from national cord blood banking, would virtually remove the need for donor siblings.

David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the moral principle that people should not be merely means rather than ends. I agree. It is also important that harm is not done to the resulting children. However, I do not understand how those principles apply to the cord blood in a saviour sibling because no person is being used merely as a means and no harm is being done to a person.

David Burrowes: Many hon. Members would be satisfied if the saviour sibling provided the cord blood. Indeed, the Joint Committee considered the matter and tried to follow that route. However, as I shall explain in more detail shortly, there is no guarantee that a match to cord blood will work. The next stage would be bone marrow and, after that, other tissue.

Patrick Hall: Surely the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that bone marrow biopsy, with one child donating to another, already takes place.

David Burrowes: Yes, but there is the important issue of consent. The Anthony Nolan Trust properly recognises informed consent. That happens in the case of bone marrow matches and is important. We are considering the most vulnerable children in terms of rights and providing proper protection for them. The House needs to ensure that we provide that protection.
	The child has autonomous rights and it is important that we recognise them and ensure that they cannot be subjugated, however pressing the need, to the concerns and needs of the parents. We should apply that principle fully and vigorously.
	Let us consider the practice in relation to saviour siblings and, more broadly, to pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and IVF treatment. One must acknowledge the difficulty of the process. I understand that it can take four cycles of IVF treatment to find the necessary match. As hon. Members know, in any one cycle of IVF treatment, around 12 eggs will be extracted. Of those, 10 will become embryos, eight will be biopsiable and it is possible to diagnose only seven. Two would be normal, with only one potentially described as good quality. Once that embryo has been implanted in the womb, the chance of it being carried to term is estimated at 15 or 20 per cent. That may not be of paramount concern for all hon. Members, but it is for some. Cycles of IVF treatment lead to many discarded embryos, both diseased and healthy. That causes some hon. Members concern, especially those who support amendment No. 4, which would prohibit saviour siblings. However, I appreciate that other Members have other concerns.
	Some of those other concerns relate to the woman. As has been said in previous debates, there is a significant risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome to the woman who undergoes the procedure. As the ovaries are stimulated to extract eggs, the ovulated ovaries release increased amounts of hormones into the abdominal cavity, causing it to become permeable. That raises concerns about the woman undergoing the procedure.

Evan Harris: Surely it is up to the woman. There is informed consent in those procedures. She may say that she wants a chance to save the affected sibling's life and wants a child who can give that chance. She is prepared, as are all those who undergo IVF, to take the risks, which are not trivial, to have that child. The hon. Gentleman's comments apply to all IVF treatment and assume that people cannot give informed consent, which they do, in their thousands.

David Burrowes: I made a point about the practical implications for women. I do not want to deny them a choice, but to draw attention to the practical risks involved in the procedure and emphasise that it is not easy to reach the point of finding a matched embryo to provide a saviour sibling.
	Let me consider the safeguards that the Government want to establish to ascertain whether they satisfy many Members' concerns about the principle of saviour siblings. In Committee in the other place on 3 December, umbilical cord blood stem cells, bone marrow or other tissue were discussed. When questioned about other tissue in November, Lord Darzi stated:
	The Bill does not limit which tissue can be used in the treatment of a sibling... and the Human Tissue Authority must approve any transplants involving organs from living donors and children who are too young to give consent.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2007; Vol. 696, c. 869.]
	That raises questions about not only a matched saviour sibling for cord blood or even bone marrow, but how other tissue can be properly defined and limited. The subsequent concern was that, if the embryo were found to be immune, it would be implanted deliberately to become a source of what those in the other place described as spare parts for an existing childits siblingeven when too young to give consent.

Ann Keen: rose

David Burrowes: If I may continue, perhaps I can give way shortly.
	Since that time, the Government have amended the Bill to clarify that the reference to other tissue does not include any whole organ of the child. The Government have sought to provide that safeguard and make it clear that a decision to allow embryo testing on the basis of providing a future organ transplant for a sibling would not be allowed. I can see the Government's good faith in that. They want to extend that safeguard in respect of the saviour sibling becoming a whole organ donor.
	Nevertheless, the Bill still contains a definition of other tissue. The matter has been debated and challenged in the other place. I understand from correspondence and debate that when reference was made to extending the safeguard and to defining other tissue as regenerative tissuemy hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) will probably want to expand on thatthe Government's position was that other tissue certainly does not include whole organs.

Brian Iddon: The regulator has so far allowed such treatment for only aplastic anaemia, Diamond Blackfan anaemia and beta thalassaemia. The regulator decides which conditions can be treated by the saviour sibling technology, which in turn determines which tissues can be taken. Would the hon. Gentleman agree with that?

David Burrowes: That raises the question of whether we should extend the use of saviour siblings not only to life-threatening conditions, but to the wider threshold of serious illnesses. In time, their use may be extended to illnesses beyond those that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That is why we must consider the safeguards carefully. However, I will deal with the process of regulation shortly.
	Rather than removing the phrase other tissue, the Government wanted to encompass the whole matrix of umbilical cord blood, in respect of research suggesting that cells of the umbilical cord, rather than the cord blood, may offer potential for treatment. That is the Government's primary focus when using the phrase other tissue. However, one cannot be wholly satisfied with that response. In the debate in the other place, in response to Lord Alton of Liverpool, who was particularly concerned about the possibility of other tissue being extended to other regenerative tissue, such as part of a liver or a lung lobe, Baroness Royall of Blaisdon said:
	With regard to parts of an organ, the Bill has been drafted in this way to allow the use of cells of the umbilical cord or, for example, if it were possible in the future to treat conditions with cells cultured from a small biopsy from the liver or any other organ.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 2008; Vol. 698, c. 23.]
	Reference was made in the debate in the other place to muscle as regenerative tissue and to ensuring that the Bill was inclusive enough to allow for biopsies from muscle for future treatments.
	The Government's position on defining other tissue, as well as including umbilical cord blood and bone marrow, is inclusive. It seeks to deal not only with the current circumstances, but future treatments that may follow. That raises profound questions. Those questions have been raised in correspondence between Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Darzi, in a letter dated 25 January, which not only questions the Government's position on other tissue in detail, but questions why, if the Government are focusing primarily on umbilical cords as the donation source, they are not minded to omit the word blood from between umbilical cord and stem cells, so that the Bill would read umbilical cord stem cells. Would that not be sufficient to capture stem cells from both the cord and cord blood? If not, would adding and cord to the existing wording, so that it read umbilical cord and cord blood stem cells, be sufficient?
	I invite the Minister to respond to that. However, if she feels that that approach would not wholly incorporate both the cord matrix cells and a small biopsy of regenerative tissue, why are the Government not explicit in the definition of other tissue? The concern remains that other tissue as currently defined still raises the spectre of part organs being available for donation, whether regenerative or not. I say, not, because then we come to the regulatory role of the Human Tissue Authority after the child is born and the possibility that the courts could be involved too, in decisions relating to transplants of whole or part organs from children.
	That spectre is raised because, as I intimated in my point of order, it is currently not within the remit of the Bill to deal with those details as they affect the Human Tissue Authority and its regulation. We are only one side of the coin, but the House does not have the opportunity to put into primary legislation its concerns about how far a saviour sibling could go in terms of donation. We all need to be aware that once the embryo is tissue typed, it has implanted an immune matched sibling for life and is known to have organs compatible with the older sibling, whether the initial reason related to tissue typing or not. That raises the danger that a saviour sibling could become a lifelong donor.

Evan Harris: There is a flaw in the hon. Gentleman's argument. What if there was a fortuitously matched sibling who was not tissue typed or selected? They would not be allowed to donate organs or parts of organs, because of criminal lawthe law of assaultand the rule that the best interests of the child must be maintained, and because the General Medical Council would take a strong view. What the hon. Gentleman describes is not going to happen in the vast majority of cases, so why does he think that special statutory protection is needed in this case?

David Burrowes: That is a helpful intervention, because the distinction must be borne in mind. With saviour siblings, we are dealing not just with a fortuitous match, but a child who has been deliberately created and tissue typed for the purpose of matching the sick sibling. That is the deliberate reason for their creation. When one comes before the Human Tissue Authority, one cannot be wholly sure about the dangers that I have set outthat the child will be a lifelong donorbecause it has not been possible to provide the cord blood or bone marrow match as a resource, but the sick sibling in that family still needs the cure for their debilitating illness, but has an immune, matched sibling, who has a genetic footprint that potentially provides the answer.

Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Burrowes: I want to extend my argument.
	The pressure is there. It is not beyond the realms of reason that the Human Tissue Authority would, in time to come, question the signal that the House had given it on saviour siblings.

Kevin Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Burrowes: As it is a new hon. Member intervening, I will.

Kevin Barron: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever read the  Hansard report of the debate on the legislation that introduced the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, but I was involved in those debates on the Opposition Benches, many years ago. Many of the arguments that he is rehearsing were made then, too, albeit in a different light, but most people in our societyand, I suspect, most people in the Househave had great confidence in that authority over the past 17 or 18 years, and are confident that in future it will do nothing more or less than what society would allow it to do.

David Burrowes: It is perhaps regrettable that we in this House cannot consider the Human Tissue Act 2004 in the context of saviour siblings, and debate it more fully so that the House can be clear about its intentions. The Human Tissue Authorityor, indeed, lawyersmight be seeking to make the case that Parliament would effectively be sanctioning the creation of a sibling for the specific purpose of tissue matching. If the alleviation or cure does not come through the use of cord blood or bone marrow, the next considerations will be about other tissues and whether there should be other donations.
	The burden on the sibling and the parents to find the cure, which they see before them in the saviour sibling, would be immense and might be of concern psychologically. The argument has been made that such a situation might, alternatively, help the family to bond. What would happen if a person who has been created to cure or help their sibling cannot do so? The pressure would continue. What would be the psychological impact on a saviour sibling of knowing that they were created for a purpose that they cannot achieve? There is no evidence on that, but the burden is on the Government to establish whether there has been any assessment or study of the psychological impacts.

Evan Harris: What is the difference between a saviour sibling being unable to fulfil such hopes, despite tissue typing, and a sibling who was not tissue matched also being disappointed because they cannot provide tissue? That is simply a sad situation, and the hon. Gentleman has produced no evidence that the sense of disappointment would be greater simply because the parents had tried harder in that situation. At least they would have tried their best.

David Burrowes: My response to that is similar to my response to the hon. Gentleman's previous intervention: those cases are entirely different. We are dealing with a sibling who has been created specifically because of their tissue match and genetic footprint to find a cure for their sibling. The case of another sibling would be wholly different.
	I should like to move to the Human Tissue Act test and consider the best interests of the child in relation to donation. The best interests test includes not only medical considerations, but a person's social, psychological and emotional best interests. That is why the psychological impact is relevant. Those interests would have to be examined if there were an application for donation. That could leave a child in a vulnerable situation and under unique internal and family pressures, having been created specifically to be a donor for the elder sibling. They could be put in a situation in which their older sibling might die if they do not provide the required organ. Those are considerations that could well arise in a chain of events, and it is therefore important that we do not simply rely on the safeguards in the Bill or even those suggested in amendments.
	We must consider carefully, rely upon and uphold the important principle that we should not deliberately create a child for the benefit of another. The way to respond to this issue is not simply through prohibition but by promoting an area of resourceumbilical cord blood stem cell research. What is happening is a crying shame; there is a moral imperative on the Government to have more than four hospitals collecting cord blood. It imperative that we do not lag at 13th position in a league table of 17 countries for our collection of cord blood units per inhabitant. We are way behind other countries. It is imperative that we inform parents of the value of cord blood and of the opportunities to collect it, and that we encourage collection so that we have that ready resource that can provide the match and cure for parents who desperately want a cure for their children. On those points of principle, I invite hon. Members to support my amendment. We should not countenance a break in the principle, effectively, that a means justifies the end.

Mark Todd: I have a brief speech to make on a narrow point of concern. What we are sanctioning in this debate is the use of an invasive procedure on a child without their consent and without their gaining any direct benefit from that intervention. There has been speculation that such a child might benefit from feelings of good will towards the sibling that they might or might not have helped, but there is no certainty of that. I shall dwell on those elements, starting with consent.
	There are many procedures for which children are not required to give consent. My son has had to undertake certain procedures on the basis that I have consented to them, and that is an entirely familiar principle in law. However, such procedures are usually associated with the principle that that childthe focus of this speech is that the child is an autonomous being in this mattershould derive some benefit from the procedure that they are undergoing. If the parents' consent is not directly associated with that child enjoying a benefit, but is so that another child will enjoy a benefit, we should reflect on that with some care.
	The Bill sanctions invasive procedures. In the preceding speech, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) made the point that that can occur in a variety of different ways that are sanctioned in the Bill. The commonest method will be concerned with bone marrow extraction, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) described as an unpleasant procedure. Like any invasive procedure, it is not without risk. It carries a low risk, but it could go wrong. If the Bill excluded such steps and instead relied entirely on non-invasive procedures, I would probably accept the wording, but it sanctions a procedure that could, as has been said, involve the extraction of a part of a child's body, and could certainly involve the extraction of bone marrow.

Patrick Hall: Does not bone marrow biopsy already take place? The point has been made that that is not with the informed consent of the child, but it could not be, because a child is not of legal majority. None the less, such procedures already take place to try to help a sibling, so what is the difference in principle? If a child were created partly for that purposeit would also be because they were wantedthat bone marrow could not be removed for at least a year after they were born, so what is the difference from existing procedure?

Mark Todd: I must say that I have some anxiety about existing practice sanctioning a potential injury to a child from which they will not derive any direct benefit, but in this instance I rely on the argument that was made in the preceding speech: the child will have been engineered specifically for that purpose rather than being created naturally. I do not regard the circumstances as being precisely comparable, but I take the point that there is a part answer to the ethical issue that I have raised.
	Lastly, the potential psychological impact on the child has been discussed. I think that all our remarks on this point are speculative. As has been made clear from the start, the sample involved is likely to be tiny and is tiny now. There is no basis on which anyone can do anything other than guess what the impact on a child might be. The positive constructions that have been suggested are perfectly possible, and a child might well feel greatly loved and that it had contributed greatly in love to its sibling. However, it is also possible that much more negative feelings might arise. I personally feel that I cannot second-guess that in law, but that is what we are implicitly doing in the Bill, as it is currently worded.

Mark Simmonds: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who made a thoughtful and thought-provoking speech, as did the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), whose logical and engaging speech carefully deconstructed the arguments that have been put forward against saviour siblings. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) made a very principled speech, and he was right to highlight the fact that we must not consider this important issue in an ethical vacuum. I have enormous respect for him, and he was right to highlight the concerns that exist about the HFEA. He was also right to emphasise the importance of cord blood. I do not agree with his amendments, however, which would effectively prohibit saviour siblings. As a father of three young children, who are thankfully very healthysometimes too healthyI have great sympathy with those who are not fortunate enough to have such healthy children. I therefore understand why such people would do anything that they can within the structure of the law to enable their sick child to survive.
	I want to speak specifically to the amendments to clause 11 and schedule 2. I also want to make some generic comments about this part of the Bill, because I understand that there are certain matters that we will not be allowed to discuss in the Public Bill Committee, and we might not have time to discuss them on Report, which will last for only one day.
	The Bill is absolutely right to outlaw sex selection for non-medical reasons. However, pre-implantation genetic diagnosisPGDwill be permitted if there is a significant risk of a child developing
	a gender-related serious physical or mental disability, a gender-related serious illness, or any other gender-related serious medical condition.
	I want to return to the use of the word serious in a moment.
	I support this general proposal, which will allow families who know that they are at risk of passing on a serious genetic condition to their offspring to test the embryos and to implant only an embryo that is free of the disease. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) pointed out that it was not compulsory for parents with genetic illnesses to use PGD. It is not discriminatory, but it is right that it may not be used to select any positive characteristics.
	The Bill also permits the selection of embryos to provide compatible
	cord blood stem cells, bone marrow or other tissue
	to a sibling with a serious medical condition. One of the amendments tabled in my name refers to other tissue. I will expand on that a little later. Cells are normally taken from the umbilical cord of the saviour sibling or, if that is not successful, from their bone marrow.
	Of course this is controversial, but the creation of saviour siblings is currently occurring. It is very rare; I understand that, to date, the HFEA has licensed tissue typing for only six families. This is available only when all the other options are exhausted, and when there is no match on the bone marrow register, the NHS cord blood bank or other blood banks or within the family. We all hope that the number of cord blood banks in this country will be increased, and that the amount of cord blood that is thrown away will be significantly reduced. However, any decision to use that tissue must be a matter for the Human Tissue Authority to determine, rather than the HFEA.
	As we have heard in the debate, there are serious concerns about the use of saviour siblings, and the HFEA and the HTA must consider closely each application to ensure that it is justified and necessary, and that there is absolutely no alternative. We have also heard discussions about the worth of the saviour child. I do not agree that the provisions would undermine that child's worth, particularly if the child were born into a loving, caring family, as it inevitably would be. In fact, the opposite impact would be achieved if a child knew that it had saved one of its siblings.
	The amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) include amendment No. 15. Its effect would be to tighten the circumstances in which embryo testing can be carried out, so that it could take place only when an illness was life-threatening or severely impaired a person's quality of life. These provisions would replace the word serious that is in the Bill at the moment. Amendments Nos. 17 and 16 would do similar things in different parts of the schedule.

Evan Harris: Is the hon. Gentleman convinced that substituting the words
	severely impairs their quality of life
	would tighten the provision that currently refers only to seriously? In other circumstancesI am not suggesting that this would apply in circumstances such as thesewe know of conditions that seriously impair the quality of life. Myalgic encephalopathy is an example. However, other serious conditions that perhaps carry a risk of sudden death are otherwise asymptomatic and do not impair the quality of life. Is the hon. Gentleman really tightening up the provision, or simply creating more flexibility?

Mark Simmonds: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The legal advice that I have received on this is contradictory; I must be honest about that. However, everyone says that the use of the word serious does not create a very tight provision, and that any effort to tighten the clause would therefore be welcome. I shall say more about that later.
	Amendment No. 18 would insert the word regenerative. This goes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate about the words other tissue. It would be helpful if the Minister could stipulate exactly what other tissue this means. I have no wish to duplicate the debate that took place in another place, in which it was made clear that this was not intended to include the removal of whole organs. I understand, however, that it could mean not only bone marrow and biopsies but partial organ removal, and that those organsfor example, a significant chunk of a livermight not grow back. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether that is being considered in this regard.

Evan Harris: Actually, I would like to use the liver as an example of something that might be caught by the hon. Gentleman's amendment, because it does regenerate, particularly in young people. Including it might make the liver an organ that the courts might deem the House to have considered. The liver is not the best example to use of an organ that does not regenerate.

Mark Simmonds: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but that is not my understanding of the situation. I am told that it depends on how much of the liver is taken. A significant percentage can be taken, even from a young person, and the person will still survive with the remnants of their liver. Not all of their liver will grow back, however. The Minister needs to tell the House whether that would be the impact of the amendment that I have tabled. A kidney is perhaps another example. People have two kidneys, and if one were taken, a person would survive. I understand, however, that that would not be allowed under these provisions because it would involve a whole organ being removed.

Greg Clark: Does the key distinction relate not to the difference between regenerative and other tissue, but to the invasive techniques that are required? These were referred to by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd). Many of us would be content for stem cells from cord blood to be used, because that does not involve invasive techniques, but we have concerns about the necessity literally to invade the body of a child in order to provide some of the other kinds of tissue.

Mark Simmonds: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I would raise with him in response the issue of what would happen if a saviour sibling were born and the umbilical cord were wrapped around the baby's neck and had to be discarded. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the parents would have to take a decision to have another saviour sibling that would generate the particular cord blood or other tissue required to save the elder child? I do not think that that would be acceptable, which is why I believe that invasive procedures such as removal of bone marrow should, as a last resort, be allowed for saviour sibling purposes.
	Amendment No. 19 would remove the regulation-making power from the Secretary of State. It is a probing amendment. It would be helpful if the Minister put on record the circumstances in which embryo testing could be licensed and if she clarified which particular circumstances the Government envisaged might be changed in the process of licensing. Would it include circumstances in which seriousness is diluted even further than I believe it is at the moment? Will she also confirm that any changes to the powers for regulating saviour siblings would be put before the House in the form of regulations, requiring the affirmative resolution procedure?
	The issue of seriousness is relevant to amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 on the circumstances in which a saviour sibling can be created. They are too open to interpretation. Reservations relate to how an illness will be defined as serious and by whom. What will be serious to one party may not be so serious to others. In my view, using the words
	life-threatening or severely impairs their quality of life
	makes it more specific to an individual, which the term serious is not. I understand why the Government do not want only the term life-threatening in the Bill, which is why I have insisted that quality of life should also be in the provisions. Some serious illnesses may seriously impact on the quality of life of an individual without actually killing that individual. Clearly, a saviour sibling may resolve that particular problem.

Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Simmonds: Let me make a little progress; I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a few moments.
	Will the Minister also clarify what would be allowed under the term serious that would not be allowed under life-threatening or seriously impairing the quality of life? If there are any serious differences, the Committee should know what they are. I understand from lawyersI say this in response to an earlier interventionthat neither serious nor quality of life provides the utopian phraseology that would be needed to ensure that this provision is drafted as tightly as it should be.

Evan Harris: I am trying to be helpful, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking my intervention. He said that serious was not tight enough, as it was open to interpretation and was essentially subjective. However, the fact that it is open to interpretation is important in clinical practice, because doctors and patients together take decisions that are specific to their circumstances. That is what medical care is. Secondly, if serious is subjectivenot a bad thing when dealing with patientsso is seriously impairing the quality of life. They are both subjective; one is no better than the other in that respect.

Mark Simmonds: That is where we disagree. I think that my amendments are better because they are, in my view, tighter. I accept that there has to be some flexibilitythere was a debate in the other place about this issuein that we cannot have a list of specific diseases or illnesses that will be treated. I understand the decision taken not to accept that: it would be very difficult to agree the list in the first place; and as new techniques came along, the list might have to be amended, which would be complex.
	Let me move on to deal with amendment No. 18, which relates to the types of tissue used to create saviour siblings. As I have said before, whole organs are prohibited, but I am still concerned about allowing the removal of parts of organs that might not grow backhence the issue of regeneration. As the hon. Member for South Derbyshire said, the issue of consent is also relevant. Indeed, consent is rightly viewed as the cornerstone of this legislation. Given that the child cannot possibly give consent, it would be interesting to know whether the consent of the parents overrides any particular ownership of tissue that the child may have. Adults can, of course, consent to kidney donation, but children and certainly saviour siblings cannot.
	Let me deal finally with licences for therapy in amendment No. 14. It is similar to amendments Nos. 31 and 32, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. The general thrust of the Bill must be that it should last as long as the 1990 Act. It is a testament to the robustness of debate on that Act that it has lasted for so long. I am sure that the Minister and all other Members of the House who are interested in these issues do not want to have to return regularly to this legislative structure, although I fear that this is one of those areas that may need looking at as technologies and sciences develop.
	Clearly, people believe that scientists may still be a long way off developing cures, but the motivation behind all that research is finding therapies and, ultimately, cures. I understand that no provisions in the 1990 Act provide for treating conditions other than those related to reproduction. The HFEA licenses for treatment non-medical fertility services, storage and research, includingcorrectlyclinical trials. The amendment would enable the HFEA to license the creation and use of embryos for therapy. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister clarified whether my comments are correct.
	I understand that if a cell line that could cure an illness was deregulated under current regulations, researchers would have to go back to square one and create another cell line to comply with EU regulations. Clearly, that may well delay the application of the cures and treatments.

John Bercow: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I press the rewind button and ask him briefly to revert to the issue of consent, on which he touched a few moments ago. I am genuinely slightly puzzled by what he said and I am interested to know his position.
	It seems to me to be unavoidably the case that consent cannot be given. I do not see how it can be given retrospectively. My hon. Friend then began to talk about the issue of ownership of tissues. What conclusion has he reached on the point about consent and does it differ from my own and that of the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth)?

Mark Simmonds: I am grateful for that intervention. I am pressing the Minister on the apparent confusion between the HFEA and the Human Tissue Authority over who is responsible for giving licences.
	Of course the cornerstone of this legislation has to be consent, and clearly it must be the consent of the parents that enables a saviour sibling to be created in the first place, but there is confusion and I suspect that the Government are resisting adding Licences for therapy to the Bill because of the complex regulatory package that would be required, including the HFEA for embryo research, the HTA for tissues and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for human applications, although those bodies already act in sequence and it would be possible for them to work together to regulate stem cells derived from human embryos for therapies.

David Burrowes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing out the complications in dealing with the licensing authoritieswithin the remit of the Bill, we have only part of the picture. Returning to the principle and the comments on consent made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), does my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) agree that the lack of consent is obviated by retrospective satisfaction? Would he care to comment on whether consent could be given in such a manner?

Mark Simmonds: I do not think that that is right, because we would get into the difficult issue, which was raised earlier, of what would happen if a saviour sibling did not provide a satisfactory conclusion to the illness or the problem. Ultimately, the parents have to make the decision, along with the licensing from the HFEA within the legislative structure that we are discussing, but consent has to be the cornerstonewhere possibleof the legislation. Of course, if there are to be exceptions, all sorts of other issues will be created, which we shall explore in the Public Bill Committee. We will discuss such things as mitochondria and the potential solutions for those with mitochondrial inherited diseases.
	Parliament needs to consider the issue now and not allow it to be slipped through by the HFEA as technology runs ahead of legislation. Indeed, one reason why there has been anxiety and angst is that the HFEA has moved forward as technology has run ahead of the legislation. The Minister will gather from the exchanges and my responses that there is clearly confusion about that issue. Clarity would be helpful.
	In response to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, the Minister mentioned that she has received legal advice that there is no necessity to put a licence for therapies into the Bill. While I can quite understand why she does not want another meeting, it would be helpful if she perhaps placed in the Library for those who are participating in the Committee the detailed legal advice that she referred to, which, as I understand it, states that there is no problem with the HFEA licensing stem-cell therapies.

Dawn Primarolo: Let me try to explain the Government's thinking on clause 11 and schedule 2, and on the issues that have been raised.
	The Bill sets out five purposes for which embryos can be tested, and a regulation-making power to amend them. One of the purposes is the creation of so-called saviour siblings. As we have observed this evening, that is an issue that provokes very strong feelings in people on both sides of the discussion. Some feel that the creation of a tissue-matched sibling is entirely appropriate to treat an affected child when it is the only treatment option, and that not to allow it would essentially impose a life sentence on the child. Others feel that, despite that, saviour siblings should not be permitted.
	Some parents with an affected child whose only treatment optionperhaps because the child has an unusual tissue typerelies on the creation of a tissue-matched sibling would feel very strongly that the Bill's proposals offer a practical solution. Having a child to satisfy a particular need, in this case the treatment of a sick sibling, is not uncommon. As the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) pointed out so eloquently on Second Reading, no one has a child solely for the child's own purposes. It is often done to satisfy the needs of parents to be parents, or the need for a brother or sister for an existing child.
	Let us consider a family who are in that position. The parents love the existing child so much, and are so motivated to do whatever they can to protect that child, that they are willing to undertake embryo testing. Embryo testing is an invasive and expensive procedure, and such motivated parents are highly unlikely to be anything other than loving and supportive to any child born into their family.

Dominic Grieve: I have been listening carefully to the Minister's arguments. I also listened carefully to the arguments of the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth). The right hon. Gentleman said that one thing we are not discussing is the creation of designer children, but that is exactly what is being discussed. It would be useful if that could be accepted. We cannot really have a sensible debate without such acceptance, because it absolutely underpins the debate.

Dawn Primarolo: I entirely disagree with that proposition. Regardless of whether the principle of saviour siblings is accepted in the House, there is no suggestion whatever that they would be designer children.
	Arguments for banning tissue typing on grounds of psychological harm to the children who are born are difficult to justify, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) said in his eloquent speech. In practice, so few families have used the technologies that any children born are so young that it is not possible to draw reliable conclusions about the impact of being a saviour sibling. I absolutely acknowledge that fact, and Members must have that clearly in their minds.

Stewart Hosie: Will the Minister give way?

Dawn Primarolo: As many points have been raised, I would like to make a little progress before taking an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
	The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) would ban tissue-typing completely. That would be a backward step, and it would prevent people from accessing treatment to which they currently have access. In practice, tissue-typing is only very occasionally carried out. As has been said, the HFEA has licensed tissue-typing only in a handful of cases, and always for life-threatening conditions. It considers applications for the process on a case-by-case basis, and we would expect it to continue to proceed on that basis. Where it has agreed to proceedfor rare blood disorderstissue typing already takes place, but that is not specifically set out in the 1990 Act, and this Bill rectifies that. Tissue typing is a treatment of last resort, and while I acknowledge the concerns of many Members, in my opinion and that of the Government there is not sufficient justification to remove the last-chance treatment option for the sick children who would be affected by such a ban.

Tom Levitt: rose

Stewart Hosie: rose

Dawn Primarolo: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie), as I promised to do so.

Stewart Hosie: I have been listening carefully, and I have a genuinely open mind on this bit of the Bill, but many of my constituents are deeply concerned about the concept of saviour siblings. Will the Minister at least acknowledge their fear that a saviour sibling who is born and then fails in their cord blood, marrow or part of an organ to fulfil one of the purposes for which they were bornto save another childmight be left utterly bereft and despondent? That is a concern that many of my constituents have for such children in the future.

Dawn Primarolo: I touched on that point. I absolutely acknowledge that in these extremely difficult cases very hard choices have to be made by loving, caring parents about their families, but those same choices are made by parents who already have younger or older children and who, for example, give their consent now for a bone marrow transplant where an existing child might save another child in the family. So these hard choices sometimes have to be made whether or not such a child has been created through the process under discussion. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are difficult issues that need to be considered, but they are not unique to the provisions in this Bill.

Geoffrey Cox: rose

Dawn Primarolo: May I just finish the point before giving way?
	I know that I would want to move heaven and earth if my child were involved. Under this clause and schedule, we are asking the House to agree to leave it to the parents who are in this dreadful situation to make an application for the special treatment that is providedtesting within saviour siblingsand to to the HFEA to consider that on a case-by-case basis in order to come to a decision about such families. I say frankly and in all sincerity that unless we are to deny those parents the opportunity ever to access the testing, that is the best that we can currently do in the House with the constraints as they are.

Several hon. Members: rose

Dawn Primarolo: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) and then to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox).

Tom Levitt: My right hon. Friend rightly identifies the motivation of the parents involved. I hope to catch the eye of whoever is in the Chair in order to tell the story of a constituent who is in one of the six families who have been licensed for this procedure so far. May I assure her that in their case it is not a question of a traditional treatment or even of the cord blood bank, which is not suitable in this case, because the alternative is to watch a young child have a slow, lingering, dreadful and early death?

Dawn Primarolo: I know, and I am sure that every Member in the House this evening and those listening to our proceedings elsewhere in the House will dread the prospect that, as a parent, they might ever be in that position. These are difficult issues, but we must assure ourselves that we do not deny the parents, who ultimately are the people who must decide to have access to this testing. We must satisfy ourselves in the House that such a process is properly regulated to deal with the unique circumstances that might arise. I promised to give way to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon, so I shall do so.

Geoffrey Cox: Is not the difference between the normal situationone calls it normal because we are dealing inherently with the abnormal in these circumstanceswhere a parent is faced with the choice of whether to give approval for an invasive procedure on an existing child whose tissue matches that of another, and a situation where a child has been deliberately conceived and bred for the purpose, that faced with the latter situation a parent would be under enormous pressure and would not, in law, be regarded necessarily as an independent and impartial person capable of taking a decision on consent in the best interests of that child? So we have a problem of consent. Is not the difference that in one case the child is bred for the purpose whereas in the other it is not and the parent is simply weighing impartially between the two children the interests of each?

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. and learned Gentleman picks unfortunate phrases in articulating his point this evening. The proposition is that somehow parents would approach this matter lightly and that, in the occasions that we can examine, they have had other children in the hope that there would be a tissue match. It is incredibly unfortunate that they could possibly be accused of being disrespectful or of entering into breeding a childas he puts itin a cavalier or unreasonable way. I would also say to him that before the HFEA issues the licence, it has to satisfy itself, within the terms and conditions of the legislation, that such a licence should be provided. Consideration would be given to all the details, to the motivations and to the appropriateness of such a licence being given in order to deal with these difficult choices. Before I move on to deal with the amendments, I shall give way once more, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East.

George Howarth: A few moments ago, the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made the allegation that schedule 2 and the relevant clause were really about authorising designer babies. May I draw his attention to proposed new paragraph 1ZB(1), in schedule 2? It states:
	A licence under paragraph 1 cannot authorise any practice designed to secure that any resulting child will be of one sex rather than the other.
	If the sex of the child cannot be determined, it is hardly possible that it can be a designer child.

Dawn Primarolo: My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. What is at issue is whether hon. Members agree in principle with saviour siblings, as my right hon. Friend pointed out in his speech. It would help the debate enormously if Members concentrated on what is actually in the Bill and what it would and would not permit, as my right hon. Friend did, rather than on their fears or their hopes in an attempt to undermine the principle.
	The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate persisted in suggesting that the Bill did not explicitly rule out the donation of organs. He did try to correct himself, but he continued to make that assertion, although it is not the case. The Bill sets out that the siblings must be suffering from a serious medical condition that could be treated by umbilical cord blood stem cells, bone marrow or other tissue, except whole organs, resulting from the child

David Burrowes: Will the Minister give way?

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman has intervened a lot and he has also spoken. If I could make some progress in answering the points that he has already made, I would be happy to give way later. He owes the Committee an explanation of whether his motivation is just that he is completely against this Bill and its provisions. That would be a legitimate position, but it would be helpful if he could make that clear.
	Amendment No. 18 would limit to regenerative tissue the cases in which embryo testing can be used where the intention is to use tissue other than bone marrow or cord blood. It is our view that that might prevent the use of some potentially desirable types of tissue in the future, such as cells of the umbilical cord itself.
	Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 address the issue of whether a disease is life-threatening. Embryo testing allows families with inherited genetic conditions to avoid passing on the particular condition that affects them. The HFEA has licensed more than 80 conditions for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, including Huntington's disease, muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis. Three of the purposes for which an embryo can be tested relate specifically to medical conditions, and the Bill specifies that embryo testing for those three purposes can be done only when the condition is serious.
	I accept the points made in the debate that the Bill does not contain a definition of serious. The HFEA will have to determine how that term should be used in practice when considering the appropriateness of embryo testing for any particular condition. We expect its ethics committee, using its full experience as an authority, to make appropriate interpretations.
	Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 would change the test required to license a condition for some of the embryo-testing purposes from serious to life-threatening or
	severely impairs...quality of life.
	The effect will be to tighten the criteria for which some types of embryo testing can be carried out. As I have said, embryo testing is not a trivial process. It involves invasive stages of IVF including the drug regime and egg collection, plus an additional stage of testing, which will ultimately reduce the numbers that are suitable to be placed in the woman. People would not and do not undertake the process lightly or for trivial conditions.
	How much effect the amendments would have on practice would depend on how the criteria are applied. The HFEA would still need to consider what makes a condition life-threatening: whether such a condition is one that shortens the life of the affected person by a number of years, or one that causes death in childhood. How much of an impairment must the condition be to the person's quality of life? Those are difficult decisions. The use of the word serious in the Bill is to determine for which conditions embryo testing is appropriate. It gives a strong steer about what kinds of conditions can be tested, while allowing scope for the HFEA to apply definitions using its licensing experience.
	Amendments Nos. 24 to 30, tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), relate to the use of the word abnormality in embryo-testing provisions. He seeks both an alternative description and an extension of the provisions. Under the amendments, the embryo-testing provisions would be extended to allow the testing of combinations of genes, as well as genes that are not necessarily harmful on their own but could be in combination with another factor. That would involve testing for genes that in the majority of the population are normal variants and would not necessarily cause a medical condition.
	The amendments go further than the provisions in the Bill, and the Government have concerns that as currently drafted the effect might not be as intended. The Bill reflects current HFEA policy, and we are not aware of anyone having used the technology for the wider uses envisaged by the amendments to date. For some people, that type of testing would be considered a step too far. However, we recognise the desire for future-proofing of the legislation. Accordingly, we have allowed for that via a secondary power enabling the provisions relating to embryo testing to be amended in the future. Such regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure. The amendments are not appropriate as they would allow testing for conditions that to date the HFEA has not licensed. If necessary in future, the legislation could be amended using the regulation-making power.
	Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 seek to remove the regulation-making power so that the provisions in the Bill when enacted could not be updated if necessarya point to which Members keep referring. To ensure that the desirable purposes of testing can be permitted, and the undesirable ones prohibited, the regulation-making power is appropriate. The amendments would not allow the legislation to keep pace with science and would limit the longevity of the new Act.
	Let me deal with amendments Nos. 14, 31 and 32, on licences for therapy. Under the 1990 Act, the HFEA is given the power to issue licences in respect of four types of activities: treatment, non-medical fertility services, storage and research. The Bill does not change that. The amendments tabled by the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon would add the further specific category of the licensing of the creation and use of embryos for therapythat is, the creation of embryos to generate embryonic stem cells for use in the treatment of disease that is not infertility related.
	The Government have always supported the use of embryonic stem cells in the development of treatments for serious diseases and medical conditions. Following discussion in the House of Lords, we gave the need to license non-reproductive therapies serious consideration. The Government are of the view that the licensing framework that would be in place following the introduction of the Bill would allow for the derivation of embryonic stem cells if it took place as part of a research project. In the vast majority of cases, it is highly likely that clinical research would be involved. The Bill would then allow the development of those cells into a therapeutic product without the need for further amendment.
	Any embryonic stem-cell line that is intended for therapeutic use will need to undergo considerable safety assessment and then a substantial research phase involving pre-clinical and clinical studies. Each and every cell produced with the intention of treating disease would be different, and therefore each and every cell line produced would require the same clinical research, including pre-clinical and clinical studies. It is therefore unlikely that stem cells will be taken directly from an embryo and inserted into the patient.
	Even with the most advanced and effective protocols for stem cells and for the differentiation of those stem cells into the tissue required, the pre-clinical and clinical testing of those cells will invariably be required before wider use can be sanctioned. As we have explained in detail and in a letter circulated to the House of Lords, it is therefore difficult to envisage a situation, despite the propositions that we have heard, where stem cells will be used for patients without some element of research involving pre-clinical and clinical studies. That would be the appropriate time to consider what further regulatory framework we need.
	Some hon. Members are concerned that if embryonic stem cells are derived under a research licence they cannot be used in treatment, because that goes beyond research. Let me address those concerns. Regulatory oversight by the HFEA finishes once a stem-cell line is derived. That means that once embryonic stem-cell lines have been developed, the HFEA regulatory framework under which the embryo was produced is not relevant to any further use of that cell line, whether for further research or for treatment.
	The Medical Research Council has recently made available 3 million in order to allow the consideration of 25 embryonic stem-cell lines for therapeutic application, which is to be awarded to research projects in that area. That reflects recognition of the potential for the creation of embryonic stem cells for use in therapy. The House should consider what it does next when that potential is closer to realisation.
	I hope that my comments have been helpful and have shown why the Government's view is that the clause and schedule, as drafted, should remain unamended.

Dominic Grieve: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but the comments made by the Minister and the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) cannot go unchallenged. I fully accept that the Committee has to consider some complex ethical issues. One of the underlying ethical issues, which the Minister touched on, is the extent to which one approves or disapproves of interfering in the process of procreation. That is one of the fundamental dividing lines between Members of the House; it has been illustrated in earlier Divisions and will doubtless crop up again.
	On Second Reading, I took the view that I should not oppose the Bill, because whatever my ethical viewpoint on that fundamental matter, it could be argued that the pass was sold in that regard rather a long time agocertainly some time before the Government took office. However, the problem that the Minister seemed quite unwilling to address this evening was that once the pass has been sold, and the House and the Government have taken over the task of making those ethical judgments, they cannot be ducked. The right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East said that the provision was not about designer childrenan argument echoed by the Minister. I have to say that their argument has an intellectual incoherence that is truly breathtaking. It cannot be argued that the provision is not about designer children, because the intention behind it is to design children who will fulfil the particular purpose of being able to help their siblings. If the House is really to be soft-soaped into believing that is not the case, it really is to the discredit of the Government in their inability to engage in coherent argument.
	There might be powerful reasons for the Minister to say that the provision represents an aspect of designing children that the Government conclude is justified. That argument would be intellectually valid, but it is to belittle any notion of common sense to argue to the contrary.

George Howarth: The example I gave from schedule 2I think, with some intellectual credibilitydemonstrates that if we cannot design the gender of the child, it cannot possibly be in all respects a designer child. There is a world of difference between what the hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about and what is in the Bill and, if I may say so, the lack of intellectual credibility lies elsewhere than with my right hon. Friend the Minister and me.

Dominic Grieve: I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, but I have to disagree with him. I accept that he might be using the expression designer child in a sense that I am not, but if one decides to select the creation of a child on the basis that it has certain design characteristics, particularly in terms of its genes, which will be helpful to a sibling, to my mind that is a designer child. We really cannot escape that argument.

Patrick Hall: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not treading into the area of saying that IVF is design? The tests made in that technique are normally to try to ensure that the child, or potential child, does not suffer from certain genetic conditions.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid pointone could indeed advance that argument. On the whole, in vitro fertilisation to aid conception has been accepted by many as valid, particularly if it is carried out, in essence, randomly. However, if it was carried out selectively the hon. Gentleman would be right.
	I want to move on. I was making a preliminary point, because as the debate moves awayas I hope I now willfrom the fundamental potential ethical divide over interference in a natural process, what troubles me is that the House may be lulled by arguments that what we are doing is not very important or does not matter. It is important that we are not lulled into a situation where the Minister says, All these things will add to freedom of choice, which was one of the arguments. That may be so, but the provisions will be subject to the HFEA, which was set up as the arbiter of that choice. That is not pure freedom of choice at all. We are not saying, We leave it to everybody to make up their mind according to their conscience. Instead, we are setting up a whole series of processes. The Minister says that the processes will be limited, but what do some of those serving on the HFEA say? An external adviser, Dr. Simon Fishel, predicted that saviour siblings would soon be used to treat children with various forms of anaemia, and could eventually help those with other conditions. He said:
	You might start looking at organs...Suppose you have a family with a gene for polycystic kidney disease.
	If they are going to have another child they could use these techniques not only to ensure that it does not suffer from the condition, but also use tissue typing just in case an older sibling does need a transplant later.
	That is not what the Government intend, but it is worth the Committee bearing in mind the possible consequences of the decisions that we are making this evening.
	There has been a lot of debate about the impact that the decision to bring a saviour sibling into the world will have on the saviour sibling, and whether it will depend on whether he fulfils the expectations of his parents. Those are valid points, but the question that we must ask, having balanced what we aim to achieve against the possible disbenefits, is whether it is necessary to proceed down that route. To argue that we are not engaging in design is a piece of casuistry that does not help us in our deliberations, because whether we are doing it for good or ill, that is what we are doing.

Robert Key: My hon. and learned Friend is making a characteristically erudite and clever speech, but he disappoints me, because he seems to be trying to argue that someone is literally designing a child. That is not the case. We are talking about discovering something that already exists, and simply choosing one kind of cellular structure rather than another, one of which will deliver genetic abnormality or disability, and one of which will not. That is not designing a child. That is taking what is on offer in nature, and it is helping to design only in the sense of choosing what is best.

Peter Bone: That is design.

Robert Key: It is not. It is not manipulating the genetics of the child in any shape or form.

Dominic Grieve: I have to say that I disagree with my hon. Friend. It is a selection of a design for a purpose. Moreover, I do not know whether he was present at the time, but the Minister made it quite clear that we are using the expression saviour sibling because the design intention is to help the sibling. Indeed, that is the purpose of the Bill. The aim is not to remove the possibility of a child having genetic problems of their own, but specifically to help another child. I am trying to confine myself to the narrow issue, rather than stray on to the wider ethical question, but I find the proposition very dubious indeed.
	The House has taken it upon itself to try to regulate these challenging ethical fieldsthrough, I suppose, the mechanism of the HFEA; it is the arbiter. I find that impossible to justify, even if I try to approach it in the manner in which it has been presented by the Minister. For that reason, I shall certainly support the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes). I do not see the need for the process, to approach the issue from the narrow angle of the Minister, and I see many downsides to it. We are embarking on a new field of ethical activitythe creation of human beings specifically for the genetic benefit of others. I suggest to the House that it should try to think through logically the consequences of what it is doing before we embark on that course.

George Howarth: The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is predicated on the assumption that a child born in such circumstances would be created for one purpose only, which is clearly not the case. I do not know whether he is aware of what was in his parents' minds when he was conceived; I certainly do not know what was in my parents' minds. I remain grateful for the fact that I was born[Hon. Members: So are we!]but I am unlikely to ask my mother, as she enters her 82nd year, what was in her mind at the time.

Dominic Grieve: I have no idea what was in my parents' minds at the time, although I can speculate, but I am sure that it was not a tissue-type match for a sibling, which is the serious point that the Committee must consider. Underlying the regulation of those processes, which have been going on since 1990, is the notion that there are some underlying ethical matters, which have continued to trouble hon. Members and the Government. Moving to a situation in which people are created as tissue matches, which is the only reason the HFEA must regulate such activity, strikes me as an astonishing change for which I have not heard a single justification.

Patrick Cormack: Is it not clear that my hon. and learned Friend was not chosen from a catalogue?

Dominic Grieve: If there was an attempt to choose me from a catalogue, it was unsuccessful, because the nature of human beings is our individuality and we are not capable of being so selected.
	I want to bring my remarks to a close. If the Minister wants to justify the provision to the Committee, she will have to do better than arguing that it is not a design process for the purpose of helping somebody else, which means that it is of no relevance to the person being procreated. Even on that narrow basis, there are strong arguments not to go down this road.

Tom Levitt: I rise as a biologist, a rationalist and a supporter of the Bill. I am not attracted by any of the amendments that have been discussed tonight. However, I do not want to engage in intellectual argument or discuss high-falutin' matters of philosophywe heard enough of that in the previous contribution.
	I want to tell the Committee a story about one of my constituents. David is three years old and suffers from fanconi anaemia. There is no medical treatment or cure for that condition. He needs a bone marrow transplant before the age of 10 to avoid a slow and lingering death within the following 20 years, when he will die from bone marrow failure or from leukaemia. There is no existing tissue match for David. All 12 million people worldwide who are members of bone marrow databases have been checked, but a match has not been found. If David were to have a bone marrow transplant from a mismatched donor, there would be a 30 per cent. chance that he would survive in the short term. At that point, he would spend six months of his life in hospital, and he would have a life expectancy of perhaps another 15 years. He would not reach adulthood, if he were to have a mismatched donor.
	The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) should note that the same point applies to cord blood banks. In an e-mail, David's father told me:
	A cord blood bank is potentially positive for any child having to undergo a bone marrow transplant but the specific nature of the disorder of Fanconi Anaemia, the commonest inherited bone marrow failure condition, is that a related sibling match will always have significantly less mortality and morbidity than an unrelated donor match irrespective
	of whether it comes
	from an unrelated adult donor or unrelated cord blood.

David Burrowes: I am grateful, particularly for the hon. Gentleman's reference to cord blood. It is the 20th anniversary of the first cord blood transplant specifically for fanconi anaemia; it was performed in France by Professor Elaine Gluckman, the major pioneer in the field. Should we not move heaven and earth, to cite the Minister's words, to ensure that we do not just throw away 98 per cent. of cord blood and so that we can use it as a resource to provide cures for fanconi anaemia without going down the ethically perilous route of saviour siblings?

Tom Levitt: I am sure that there is a role for cord blood banks. In this particular case, however, David's is one of the six families who have been licensed for the saviour sibling technique precisely on the grounds that there is no alternative treatment. Were David to have a sibling-saviour transplant, there would be a 95 per cent. chance of success in the short term. He would spend just three weeks in hospital and live the rest of his life as normal.
	Conditions such as fanconi anaemia are very rare, and that may be why only six families are licensed for the treatment at present. David's father has explained why his family have embarked on the process:
	We would like to save his life. We would also like to have an unaffected child that will outlive us and that can give us hope in our lives...For most people who choose to have an opinion, this Bill will fortunately never affect them. This Bill is for families like us...Other families worry about what choice of secondary school they will send their child to, we worry about whether our child will be alive next year. Our son already asks about bone marrow, transplantation, and death...we are waiting with trepidation for the day he asks us to explain his condition.

Patrick Hall: My hon. Friend was present when the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox) questioned the suitability of parents' engagement in decisions about the matters under discussion. Does my hon. Friend not agree that the process through which his constituents have gonethe counselling and expert advice that they have receivedplaces them in a stronger position than most people will ever be in for taking an informed decision?

Tom Levitt: My hon. Friend anticipates what I was just about to say about David's parents. They are both doctors and are very well informed about what they are asking of their future child. It is also interesting that they are both Catholics. They are concerned that if they go ahead with the technique, they will be stigmatised among some of their friends.

Judy Mallaber: Did my hon. Friend hear his constituent speaking on the news at lunch time? Anyone else in the Committee who heard him will have had no doubt about the rationality of his decision, his love for his existing child and the love that he would give a second child. The decisions were taken in a very rounded way and were reached in difficult ethical circumstances, given the personal beliefs with which the parents had to contest. My hon. Friend's constituent should be a welcome example for anybody in the House.

Tom Levitt: My hon. Friend is right. I knew that the interview was taking place, although I did not hear it. However, I have been in e-mail correspondence with my constituent about this issue in the past few days.
	David's parents are desperate that their child and others with similar conditions should be able to live. They have asked me to beg the Committee to let David live, accept the proposals for savour siblings outlined in the Bill and ensure that when that choice is the right and only way forward, it is not ruled out for families such as David's.

Evan Harris: This excellent debate has gone far and wide, well beyond the issue of saviour siblings. In fact, I am surprised that the debate has ended somewhat earlier than planned. Nevertheless, I should like to offer the following comments to the Minister and the Committee about my amendments.
	Amendments Nos. 24 to 30 question whether abnormality is the right term to use for the genetic characteristic to be tested in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. I accept that, as the Minister said, my amendments go further than the provisions of the Bill. But I am concerned that the Bill may not go far enough to capture all the conditions that are not single-gene mutations, and therefore abnormalities, that one might legitimately want to test for with the same threshold of seriousness. The Minister says that we would need to provide examples in order to persuade her that the existing wording was not sufficient, and that is the challenge. If, for example, one could identify two normal variantscausing a life-threatening diseasethat could not be called abnormalities, perhaps the Government would look at the matter again. I shall ask the clinical advisers whom I have been hearing fromincluding Professor Martin Bobrow, who chaired the Academy of Medical Sciences working group into another aspect of the Billwhether they can provide some specific examples.
	The second area is that of licences for therapy, which is dealt with by amendment No. 30 and associated amendments. I listened carefully to the Minister, who made it clear that the Bill allows embryos to be created and used for research, which in itself should be sufficient to cover any therapeutic use. She gave a second reason, which I accept, that the therapeutic use of cells will be covered by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the Human Tissue Authority and not the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.
	Moreover, any embryos from which stem cells are derived will inevitably have research associated with them, and therefore could be covered by a research licence. But I question whether that is the case in every situation. Briefly, I want to mention four scenarios and see whether the Minister recognises that there might be a problem.
	There might be an organisation that is a specialist in the derivation of embryonic stem-cell lines in other jurisdictions, which applies to the HFEA for a licence to use embryos to create stem-cell lines that it intends to pass on to another organisation to use for research or therapy. How would such an applicant be able to specify what research was done if it is not doing the research? The current Bill requires the people producing the embryos to be the people associated with the research licences, which may stifle innovation, investment and the production of stem cells.
	Secondly, cell-based therapy might be so well established in the future that only quality assurance need be carried out, without a research protocol, prior to therapy. In such a scenario, the embryo would be created and then used for therapy without a research step. The same distinction between quality assurance and audit on the one hand, and research on the other, is already made in the Human Tissue Act 2004 for the use of tissue. The Minister's argument depends on there being no possible therapeutic use that did not require a form of clinical or pre-clinical research on those cells, and I am not convinced that that is certain.
	The assumption that the therapeutic use of ES cells will always follow formal research during the lifetime of the legislation is dangerous because if phase 1 and phase 2 trials are successful, there will be clinical pressure to use ES cells as experimental treatment, albeit licensed by the MHRA, outside of the phase 3 research protocol. Alternatively, phase 3 trials might be successful, and it would be questionable whether one could identify a proper research application, beyond quality assurance, within the subsequent use of the newly derived ES cell lines created under research licence. The Minister may say that that is dealt with, and if she agrees to put a summary of the legal advice in the Library, I shall look at it.
	Finally, if therapeutic cloning works, it might be possible to provide autologous stem-cell therapy for a patient using their own somatic cells. That would be experimental therapy, not research, if it were used, and such a situation might apply in the lifetime of the Bill. I am concerned that the Government are not adequately future-proofing the Bill by accepting the relevant amendment, and we shall have to examine that question in the weeks to come. It is not my intention, however, to press it to a Division now.
	I turn to amendment No. 15, in the name of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), which I did not address in my earlier comments. It proposes to change the definition of serious disease to a disease that causes a serious impairment of quality of life. He defended that on the basis that his definition was tighter and less open to interpretation. I questioned that in interventions. To be fair, he kindly accepted that he was not sure that it was tighter.

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Minister confirmed that my interpretation was correct and his was incorrect.

Evan Harris: I question whether the definition is tighter, but I do not believe that it should be because the decision should be left to doctors and patients, under the regulator's guidance. It is difficult for us to decide at the outset that something is not serious when the regulator, the doctor and the patient might consider it serious. When pre-natal diagnosis is done through amniocentesis, with an indication for termination of pregnancy, not at an embryonic but a foetal stage, weeks into the pregnancy, there are no criteria for seriousness. It is illogical to have a high threshold for embryonic steps to avoid illness when amniocentesis and pre-natal diagnosis in an established pregnancy require no such threshold. Doctors have written to me saying that they do not understand that distinction: why one can terminate a pregnancy without a seriousness thresholdthe doctors and patients decidewhen we set such a threshold for embryo testing, before a pregnancy is established.
	Let me consider the important speech of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) about the extent to which it is appropriate to conduct invasive procedures on a child to derive tissue for transplant to a sibling. I am a member of the BMA Medical Ethics Committee. The BMA wrote that it is not worried about that ethical problem because there is already provision for taking the child's best interests into account. In the case of disagreement by doctors and parents or between parents, a court must be involved. Paragraph 44 of the Human Tissue Authority code of practice states clearly, if briefly:
	Courts have identified certain important decisions which require court approval where one person with parental responsibility consents against the wishes of another. If there is any dispute between persons with parental responsibility or any doubt as to the child's best interest, the matter should be referred to court for approval.
	Invasive procedure could be sanctioned only when there is no doubt that it is in the child's best interests. Of course, that is relevant to every sibling, not only the small minority of saviour siblings, who may be a match for an affected child. It is wrong to suggest, in the few cases that the Bill covers, that there is a problem with common law, medical ethics and the guidance to doctors about the best interests of a child for invasive procedures if we do not extend those provisions to the many more children in that position. The Bill strikes the right balance on saviour siblings and I urge hon. Members to bear that in mind.
	I respect the commitment of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) and the way in which he presented amendment No. 4, on which I am sure the Committee will divide. However, it is clear from advisers on cord blood banking that, however much one expands cord banks, it will not remove the need in a minority of cases for saviour siblings. I hope that he accepts that I can find no medical opinion, including from those who run the banks, to support the view that expansion would do away with the need for legislation on saviour siblings in a minority of cases.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 2
	Activities that may be licensed under the 1990 Act
	 Amendment proposed: No. 15, page 55, leave out lines 24 to 28 and insert
	'(i) a gender-related physical or mental disability which is life-threatening or severely impairs their quality of life,
	(ii) a gender-related serious illness which is life-threatening or severely impairs their quality of life, or
	(iii) any other gender-related serious medical condition which is life-threatening or severely impairs their quality of life [Mark Simmonds.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 149, Noes 318.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendment proposed: No. 4, in page 55, leave out lines 30 to 37. [Mr. Burrowes.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 163, Noes 342.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendment proposed: No. 18, in page 55, line 35, after 'other', insert 'regenerative'. [Mark Simmonds.]
	 The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 293.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendments made: No. 36, page 57, leave out lines 37 to 41 and insert
	'(a) bringing about the creation of human admixed embryos in vitro, and
	(b) keeping or using human admixed embryos,'.
	No. 37, page 58, leave out lines 3 to 10.
	No. 38, page 58, leave out lines 17 to 19.
	No. 39, page 58, line 21, leave out ', (3) or (5)' and insert 'or (3)'. [Ms Diana R. Johnson.]
	 Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
	To report progress and ask leave to sit again .[Liz Blackman.]
	 Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

COMMITTEES

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall take motions 2 and 3 together.

Procedure

Ordered,
	That Mr Rob Wilson be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Mr Mark Field be added.

Tax Law Rewrite Bills (Joint Committee)

Ordered,
	That Mr Nick Clegg be discharged from the Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills and Mr Colin Breed be added .[ Mr.  Nic holas Brown , on behalf of the Committee of Selection .]

PETITION

Family Courts (Reform)

John Hemming: This petition is an interesting one, because the driving force behind it was a great grandfather, Mr. Phil Thompson, who was bewildered as to why his great grandchildren were taken out of the family. After some difficult effort, we found out the low level of threshold that was required, and hence we have the following petition:
	The Petition of the O'Gorman Family,
	Declares that a case in the Family Court has highlighted an injustice in the current system. The three children of Philip O'Gorman have been put up for adoption because it is alleged one of them missed some days in school, some medical appointments were missed, they were seen to be dirty and unkempt and that they would not cooperate with social services. The family contest the allegations, and believe that neither of these allegations is sufficient to warrant children being forcibly adopted into another family. The petitioners further believe that these actions were driven by a desire to increase the numbers of children adopted rather than to protect the children concerned. The petitioners believe that the response of the authorities was totally disproportionate in this case.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to legislate to prevent courts from accepting these arguments as sufficient cause to forcibly remove children from their birth families and ensure that parents are facilitated to contest the allegations made by the authorities
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000196]

GENERAL PRACTITIONER DISPENSING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Liz Blackman.]

Tony Baldry: I have given the Minister prior notice of exactly what I intend to say to enable him better to respond directly to the points that I shall raise.
	I need to put my concerns about the future of GP dispensing into the context of two broader points. The first is that my constituents are becoming increasingly angry and frustrated about what they see as a persistent attack by this Government on local services. Locally, we have seen post office closures, and we have been spared the closure of our local, consultant-led maternity unit and 24/7 children's wards at the Horton hospital thanks only to the intervention of the independent reconfiguration panel. Not surprisingly, my constituents are constantly asking what next public or community service will be taken away from them.
	One of my constituents wrote to ask me to oppose the pharmacy White Paper, asking
	why is this Government so determined to destroy all quality of life for rural inhabitants? This village has lost its Post Office, and consequently its shop, is shortly to lose our next nearest Post Office, now our dispensary service is under threat. What will they destroy next?
	Secondly, this debate has to be seen in the context of the Government's professed commitment to give NHS patients greater choice. After all, the Government have spent considerable amounts of money on ensuring that GPs have choose and book systems, the better to allow patients choice as to where they are treated. Indeed, last week, the Prime Minister in his statement on the draft legislative programme said:
	It is right to make it
	the NHS
	more accountable to local people, giving patients real power and control over the service they receive.[ Official Report, 14 May 2008; Vol. 475, c. 1387.]
	If the Government genuinely want to give patients real power and control over services they receive, the least the Government could do is to allow people the freedom to decide where they would like their prescriptions dispensed.
	At the moment, there are some 5,872 dispensing doctors in the UK in 1,365 practices. Overall, they look after more than 8 million patients, of whom 3.5 million are dispensing patients. For reasons that I shall explain, these GPs mainly have rural practices. They provide the enormous benefit that patients can visit their GP and, at one and the same place, have their drugs both prescribed and dispensed. That service is being threatened by the Government.

Colin Breed: I wish to reinforce the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. This debate has come to the attention of doctors in Cornwall and today I received an e-mail from Dr. Mark McCartney, who says:
	A new issue has arisen with the Pharmacy Bill which aims to end GP dispensing, another threat which may harm rural practices and services to patients, including small chemist shops as well as the GP's own dispensaries.
	His whole practice, in Pensilva in my constituency, is very concerned.

Tony Baldry: There are dispensing practices throughout England that are very concerned because it would seem that the Government wish to give pharmacies a monopoly on dispensing.
	There is, I suspect, some history that needs to be understood. When the NHS was set up, its establishment was a huge undertaking and no doubt required a number of political compromises with a range of groups involved in health care including GPs and pharmacists. I suspect that the big retail chemist chains such as Boots said that they would co-operate with its establishment only if they were given a monopoly of prescribing drugs in urban areas. Almost from the NHS's inception, therefore, pharmacies had a monopoly on dispensing drugs in urban areas.
	Since then, almost every other similar professional monopoly has long been discarded. One only has to think of the revolution in eye care and opticians that occurred when opticians' monopoly to sell spectacles was taken away. However, the Government not only intend to retain the pharmacies' monopoly on dispensing, but are clearly intent on strengthening that monopoly, as evidenced in the White Paper Pharmacy in England, which the Department chose to publish during the Easter recess, so it did not get the publicity that it perhaps deserved.
	The existing dispensing rules already lead to some fairly ludicrous results. Here, I declare some interests. I live in the village of Bloxham, in my constituency. It is some 4 miles from Banbury, dominated by the spire of its parish church. It is a self-contained village, surrounded by fields for some considerable distance. It is perhaps one of the few villages in England that is so much a village that the Warriner school in Bloxham even has its own school farm. The village has a very good GP practice and surgery, which also has a dispensary, so that patients who attend Bloxham surgery can also have their drugs dispensed there. I am a registered patient at that surgery, although I have to say that I am a very infrequent visitor, as whenever Dr. Martin Harris, my GP, sees me, he rightly tells me that I need to lose a couple of stone in weight.
	A pharmacy chain has applied to open a chemist shop in Bloxham. I am sure that residents of Bloxham and the surrounding villages will be genuinely delighted if a chemist shop is opened in Bloxham. The village is fortunate in having a diverse range of local shops and a chemist shop would be genuinely welcome. However, under the existing rules, the application by a pharmacy to open in Bloxham was a trigger for the primary care trust to review whether Bloxham continues to be a rural area. If an organisation called the NHS Litigation Authority decrees it to be an urban area, any incoming pharmacist who sets up will be given a complete monopoly on dispensing and the GP practice will no longer be allowed to dispense drugs for Bloxham residents. That might also lead to the GP practice being forced to cease dispensing before the proposed new pharmacy has been established.
	The definition of what is rural is left to the individual primary care trust, but it is usually considered to be an area surrounded by open land with a limited number of shops or other facilities and poor transport infrastructure. The decision is subject to appeal, and an oral hearing has been scheduled by the NHS Litigation Authority in July. Once determined, there is no further appeal short of judicial review, and the decision stands for five years unless there is a major change in circumstances. Bizarrely, should it be determined that Bloxham is no longer rural, the GP practice will be allowed to continue to dispense drugs to patients in other villages such as Barford St. Michael or Milcombe, but not Bloxhamuntil the provisions of the Government's White Paper in due course kick in.
	Put shortly, under the existing rules GPs may not dispense to patients who live within 1.6 km of a pharmacy or who are deemed to live in a non-rural area. Almost everyone living in Bloxham considers that being told by the Government that they no longer live in a village is pretty crazy. But what really causes offence is the thought that they will no longer have any choice as to where their drugs are dispensed, and that they will be compelled, whether they like it or not, to go to a new chemist to get their drugs dispensed. Bloxham residents are concerned that they will no longer be able to get their drugs dispensed by their own GP, as in the past, notwithstanding that that is far more convenient and that they only need to park onceparking at the GP's surgery is considerably easier than having to park near the shops in Bloxham. Why not give patients choice?

Edward Vaizey: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I represent the south of Oxfordshire in Wantage and I have been inundated with letters on the matter. Does my hon. Friend agree that choice is the key issue? My constituents focus on the point that although it might be right to relax the rules regarding pharmacies so that they can dispense more drugs and give some medical advice, it is wrong as a quid pro quo to close down GPs' dispensaries. My constituents simply want choice, and surely that is what they should be given so that they can continue to use the dispensary if they so choose.

Tony Baldry: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The Government say that they are keen to give NHS patients as much choice as possible, so why not give them choice about where they have their drugs dispensed? Why take away patients' ability to have their drugs dispensed at their GP surgery if they so wish? It seems that the Government will allow choice in the NHS when it suits them, and will not when it does not. Is it simply that the Government wish to give the impression of choice, freedom and new regulation, when in reality they are being increasingly dirigiste?
	One rationale given in the White Paper for the proposals was that present regulations do not take into account the distance that a patient must travel between the GP surgery and the chemist. The new proposals fail to address that, as the new regulations would still be unable to account for the distance a patient has to travel between their surgery, their home and the pharmacy. The solution proposed in the White Paper would simply result in fewer patients receiving the service.
	I thought that the proposal to prevent the Bloxham GPs from dispensing drugs to local people was one of the crazier decisions that I had come across during my 25 years as a Member of Parliament, and so I asked the Office of Fair Trading if it would investigate what on the face of it seemed to be simply a strengthening of the monopoly against the interests of consumers.  [ Interruption. ] It may be for the convenience of the House [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must say to the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) that we do not usually accept interventions from Front Benchers during an Adjournment debate, and certainly not from a sedentary position.

Tony Baldry: It may be for the convenience of the House, and of the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), to listen to the response I received from John Fingleton, the chief executive of the OFT, which is dated 28 April 2008. It reads:
	Thank you for your letter of 28th March with enclosures...requesting that the OFT consider your concerns about the monopoly community pharmacies have under pharmaceutical regulations in dispensing drugs in 'urban' areas, which you consider is against consumers' interests. You ask that the OFT refers the matter to the Competition Commission to investigate.
	To be clear, the OFT does have powers to refer markets in which we consider competition problems to exist to the Competition Commission for investigation. But as an alternative, and where more appropriate, we can also make recommendations to the Government for changes in existing...regulations.
	In fact it was using these powers that in 2003 we investigated the role of community pharmacies in dispensing drugs. Our Report 'The Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK' recommended liberalising the pharmacy market to allow any registered pharmacy with qualified staff to dispense NHS prescriptions.
	Our investigation concluded that deregulation would give consumers greater choice, provide more competition and better access to pharmacy services.
	We note your concerns about the monopoly position of community pharmacies in urban areas and the situation which may arise in Bloxham where consumers previously using the General Practitioners' surgery dispenser may have to travel a distance to access the nearest pharmacy. We strongly believe consumers, particularly the elderly and infirm, should be able to obtain their drugs with utmost convenience, whether that be from a surgery dispenser or a community pharmacy and we hope this continues to be so in your area.
	The Government response to our Report did not feel deregulation as the best course of action and it decided to modify the entry control regulations rather than abolish them. It has since developed far-reaching plans for reshaping the NHS and as you know polyclinics are part of these plans...our view remains that the retail pharmacy market should be liberalised and the Government is aware of this.
	Let us be clear about what is being said. The Office of Fair Trading is the organisation established by Parliament, by statute, to protect the interests of consumers. The OFT has made recommendations to the Government that it believes would give consumers
	greater choice...more competition and better access to pharmacy services.
	The Government have ignored the OFT.
	The OFT believes that consumers,
	particularly the elderly and infirm, should be able to obtain their drugs with utmost convenience, whether that be from a surgery dispenser or a community pharmacy.
	Not only have the Government ignored the OFT, but they are, as I shall explain, going in exactly the opposite direction.
	The Government's White Paper, Pharmacy in England, was published during the Easter recess, as I mentioned earlier. Proposals in the White Paper, if implemented, would mean that any GP surgery with more than about 3,000 registered patients would not be able to dispense drugs. No GP surgery with a chemist within a mile of the surgery would be allowed to dispense drugs. The opportunity for dispensing doctors to continue dispensing would be completely dependent on whether a pharmacist decided to open a shop within a mile of their surgery. For example, the Montgomery House surgery in Bicester has a considerable number of patients who live in the surrounding villages. At present, if they need drugs prescribed and dispensed after a visit to their GP, it can all be done conveniently at the surgery. In future, if the Government have their way, my constituents will no longer have that opportunity or choice; they will be obliged to go elsewhere to have their drugs dispensed. Why?
	If doctors are prevented from dispensing, the resulting loss of income for the practice will in many instances also mean a reduction in patient services. At present, the income from dispensing subsidises other servicesfor example, branch surgeries. Dispensing practices have examined the plans and foresee that they will have to close branch surgeries or make salaried GPs redundant. Where doctors are near retirement and sole practitioners, the prospect of surgery closure looms.
	Is it all a ruse whereby the Government hope to help fund polyclinics? Will polyclinics be allowed to dispense drugs? Why does the chief executive of the OFT say in his analysis of the Government's failure to take on board the OFT's recommendations that the Government have
	developed far-reaching plans for reshaping the NHS and as you know polyclinics are part of these plans?
	During a recent debate on family doctor services, I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, who was pointing out that the introduction of polyclinics could threaten existing GP surgeries. I observed that communities were also losing their dispensaries, and asked:
	Is my hon. Friend aware that 8.5 million patients are in GP practices that dispense drugs? Under the Government's White Paper on the future of pharmacy services it will be almost impossible for GPs to dispense drugs in the future. Why on earth remove patient choice in this way? This is yet another service that will be lost in villages in my constituency and colleagues' constituencies.
	My hon. Friend responded:
	Yes, I am interested in what my hon. Friend says because in one particular respect the effect of the pharmacy White Paper, which was published during the recess, may well be to undermine dispensing by dispensing doctors, and it may all be part of a common process by the Government. The polyclinics are expensive beasts; they cost about 800,000 each, so money has to be raised for them. I suspect that in many cases the Government intend to ensure that they have a large pharmacy, which will take the pharmacy profits, and the dispensing doctors in local surgeries will lose out and shut down as a consequence.[ Official Report, 23 April 2008; Vol. 474, c. 1317.]
	Given that a large number of polyclinics will be in urban areas, there can be no possible justification for the Government's allowing them to dispense drugs when they are not allowing GPs to dispense drugs. Do the Government intend to rewrite the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 2005 to favour polyclinics?
	There seems to be no end to the Government's meddling in the NHS. There have been nine major reorganisations of the NHS since Labour came to power, at a cost of 3 billion. The NHS is an institution that binds our nation together. In cities, towns and villages up and down the country, family doctor surgeries are part of the fabric of our community. The Government seem intent on imposing a polyclinic on every primary care trust area, which will inevitably put a substantial number of smaller local family doctor surgeries at risk. Again, if the Prime Minister is serious about the Government wanting to give patients real power and control over the service that they receive, why will the Government not let my constituents vote on whether they want a polyclinic imposed on Banbury?
	Well over 1,000 GP practices in England will be destabilised as a consequence of the proposals in the Government White Paper on pharmacy. More than 8 million patients are registered with dispensing practices and thus potentially affected, and huge numbers of them will in future be denied choice about where, and by whom, their prescriptions are dispensed. It is estimated that between 5,000 and 7,000 staff employed in the dispensary and ancillary service areas of dispensing practices will be made redundant. That is a crazy situation. Will the Minister provide assurances that the Department will re-examine the proposals for dispensing doctors, and will he ensure that those appalling plans are not put into practice? Patient choice is allegedly a constant driver in all other aspects of Government health policy. Why not in dispensing?
	Dr. Laurence Buckman, the chairman of the general practitioner committee of the British Medical Association, tells me that the implications of the Government's pharmacy White Paper
	could be very severe indeed. The result might well be to terminate the rights to dispense of a substantial number of practices who rely on their dispensing income to subsidise the rest of the practice's work. We believe that this could well mean that a lot of practices would cease to be financially viable and thus affect the provision of NHS services to their patients. This would be a perverse result of proposals that are intended to provide greater choice and access to patients.
	Paragraph 8.7.2 refers to 'transitional rules' being required in the event that the loss of dispensing income financially destabilises a practice. 'Transitional' implies that such resources would eventually be withdrawn and so practices are and will continue to be under the threat of closure as it is unlikely that existing NHS income could be increased to cover the loss of dispensing...dispensing practices are popular with patients and provide an excellent service. Given that there is no public demand for any changes to the current arrangements, we do question why the Government seem so determined to generate so much uncertainly and to potentially destabilise the provision of local services.
	Dr. Buckman observed that
	in just about every patient survey that has been undertaken, dispensing practices are shown to be highly popular with patients. Indeed, the decision to have medicines dispensed with a practice rests with the patients themselves.
	The Prime Minister and the Government purport to give patients real power and control over the services that they receive, but it is clear that in practice the Government have no intention of giving patients either power or control over services. I hope that Ministers will seriously reconsider their proposals for GP dispensing.

Ivan Lewis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) on securing this Adjournment debate, and point out that he has not given me much time to respond to the various points that he made. If I am not able to respond to them all directly, I will follow them up in writing. I thank him for giving me a copy of his speech in advance.
	I should like to begin by responding to the challenge, What next? Record levels of sustained investment in the NHSthat is what is coming next for the hon. Gentleman's constituents. Continued record levels of investment in his local schoolsthat is what is coming next. Measures that brought an end to mass unemployment will continue under this Government; that is what is coming next for his constituents. I assume that his constituents will benefit from free off-peak travel for pensioners, and from the winter fuel allowance, which was introduced by this Government.
	Of course, the hon. Gentleman's constituents, and those of the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey), will benefit from the extended opening hours in primary care that have come about as a consequence of the recent ballot of GPs, which was initiated by this Government. There will be evening and weekend opening; I am sure that the constituents of the hon. Member for Banbury will welcome that, too. It is interesting that he did not refer to the fact that there is a clear dividing line between the Government and Her Majesty's Opposition on the issues. The Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition has clearly stated that future decisions about primary care should be in the hands of the British Medical Association. The Government's policy is that future decisions about primary care should be in the hands of patients. That is the nature of the health service that we seek

Edward Vaizey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Ivan Lewis: I will not.
	That is the nature of the health service that we seek to create. The idea that the Government have an agenda to impose polyclinics on a one-size-fits-all basis in every community in every part of the country is utter nonsense. That is disingenuous, because it is not the Government's position.
	On behalf of his constituents, the hon. Member for Banbury has raised a number of valid and legitimate points, which I shall deal with. On Bloxham, the current regulations covering NHS pharmaceutical services have been in place since April 2005. They replaced previous systems, which existed in one form or another since 1948indeed, I understand that the regulations on rural areas can be traced back to 1936. The latest regulations implement a series of measures that were agreed between pharmacy and medical representative bodies back in 2001. It is important for the House to bear in mind the fact that the regulations that gave rise to the local PCT's decision about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned are based on that accord between representatives of doctors and pharmacists.
	It is a long-standing general precept, which all Governments have endorsed since the NHS came into being, that doctors prescribe medicines and pharmacists dispense them. In that way, patients receive the benefits of both professions' expert advice, intervention and care. I have used the term general precept very carefully. We all agree that both medical and pharmaceutical services have developed significantly since 1948. Our White Paper set out ways in which pharmaceutical services should and will grow in the future.
	It is also possible that a community pharmacy is simply not a viable proposition in every part of the country, especially in rural areas. Patients need to receive their NHS-prescribed medicines promptly and efficiently, which is where dispensing doctors can play a vital role by allowing patients to collect their medicines from a surgery's dispensary without undertaking a lengthy journey to the nearest pharmacy. In the vast majority of cases, if the patient wishes to receive the services of a dispensing doctor, they need to live in a designated controlled localitythe hon. Gentleman has raised that point. The local PCT determines whether a particular area is rural or not. When it does so, it invites views from interested parties locally. Whatever the PCT decides, the decision can be appealed to an independent body, the NHS Litigation Authority, which is genuinely independent. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the question is whether Bloxham is rural in character. An appeal against the PCT decision has been lodged with the NHS Litigation Authority, and every opportunity will be given for people, including the hon. Gentleman, to make appropriate representations.
	The hon. Gentleman has referred to the OFT. He has accused the Government of ignoring the OFT's recommendations on community pharmacy services, which we did not do. We responded in July 2003 and did not accept the case for full deregulation. We decided to move cautiously in the recommended direction, and we announced a balanced package of reforms to the regulatory system. We introduced those reforms in 2005 and reviewed their operation in 2006. Overall, we have found that they opened up the market as intended without destabilising it, but the impact was genuinely uneven. The tendency for pharmacies that are open for at least 100 hours a week to cluster near each other in some places is considered in the White Paper, which is why we have introduced proposals for further reform and why we did not fully deregulate as the OFT wanted.
	On the reference by the OFT's chief executive to GP-led health centres, I cannot say what was intended by the reply that the hon. Gentleman received, and I am sure that the chief executive's office will be pleased to help him further. GP-led health centres are designed to extend choice and offer convenient services. Indeed, 250 million of additional funding is available, and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will bid for some of those additional resources on behalf of his constituents.
	The White Paper was not, as the hon. Gentleman has claimed, published during the recess; it was published while Parliament was sitting. It has received broad support from all those involvedthe NHS, health professionals and business. The hon. Gentleman has referred to chemists' shops, and I hope that the community pharmacy profession as a whole is not offended by the implication that its members are simply retailers. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman implied no such disparagement; pharmacists are, of course, highly trained and skilled professionals. However, not once has the hon. Gentleman mentioned his local pharmacist or referred to the comprehensive programme that we have set out to develop community pharmaceutical services.
	It is absolutely right in a changing world that the Government should be prepared to engage in the reform of the NHS that most appropriately meets patients' needs. Of course, that has to be done in partnership with the local population, which will be given every opportunity to comment.
	 The motion having been made after Ten o'clock , and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at Eleven o'clock.